Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 19

May 19

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Case Western Reserve University music scene

Vanity page. These bands aren't even notable in Cleveland. — (Cigarette forgot to sign.)

• Keep. This is a good way to merge bands that aren't notable per WP:MUSIC into one article. See this discussion for more details. android↔talk 01:36, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Case Western Reserve University →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:46, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Merge as above. JYolkowski // talk 01:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (as above) and Delete, NO redirect. Master Thief Garrett 04:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Delete as per RickK's notability reasoning. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 07:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete is a violation of GFDL. RickK 21:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, right, I keep forgetting that. I just don't like pointless redirects. *goes off muttering something* Master Thief Garrett^Talk 07:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Case Western Reserve University. Delete, on a second review of this Rick has a point. Megan1967 05:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Mcfly85 17:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, please! This is just an under-the-door way of trying to get advertising for non-notable bands into the encyclopedia. Will we now see [[[Music scene in xxx]] for every band that has been VfD'd as non-notable? If these bands were notable, there could be indivdual articles about them. RickK 21:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense heavily and merge with Case Western Reserve University. --Carnildo 21:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RickK. Radiant_* 10:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as RickK has said. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RickK. Quale 09:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RickK. JamesBurns 09:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Case Western Reserve University - I would be fine with condensing the material as well, if necessary. At what point will a decision be reached? - Mark McCartney (talk) 22:37, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Leanne 04:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RickK. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 25 May 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.

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 Speedy deleted by SWAdair, "Vandalism". Master Thief Garrett 11:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Identity Crisis (psychology)

I think someone's had a bad trip - but then I'm a little ignorant of psychology --Doc Glasgow 00:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, this is a real concept, courtesy of Erik Erikson. This is a bit of an essay, though, so...meh. No vote. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 01:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Either that (the Doc's diagnosis) or (s)he has been doing too much lucid dreaming. From the article: "In other words, a person can become confused." It happened to the author, and the confusion led the article to veer from encyclopedic. Delete, no substantial content here to keep or merge. But I note that there is no properly-capitalized Identity crisis (psychology) article linked from the Identity crisis disambiguation page, which also lists a DC Comics miniseries and a Star Trek-based e-book. And there's no "identity crisis" mention in the Psychology article. "What links here" shows there is a Identity (social science) article which links to the Identity crisis disambig page. The term is used enough in movies, television, books, magazines, et cetera (plus the I(ss) article) that we should probably list it as a requested article if nobody jumps on this VfD. Barno 01:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• As above, an article with a name similar to this should exist, but written better than its current form... Abstain on the vote itself - depends whether someone knowledgeable in this field would have ANY material to work with from the current content. Stoive 02:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Make it a requested article. There isn't much there to work with now, but it should exist. Sairen42 05:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily deleted as vandalism. This is one of a string of articles the author created during a vandalism spree (see User talk:Mythrandia). This article qualified as an indisputably bad-faith addition. SWAdair | Talk 05:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

While there were several votes for "merge", I could find no content worth merging that made the Lucid dreaming article better even if the existence of the book were verified (which it has not been). Rossami (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

All you want to know about lucid dreaming

No google hits for author+title. --W(t) 00:57, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Unencyclopedic article title turns out to be the title of a book. One that was published, it says. No indication of notability, no google hits for exact title, nor for author's name + "lucid dreaming". Delete unless verified, in which case expand. Barno 01:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I also cannot find any matches on Amazon.com. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• If verified merge with Lucid dreaming under the Books section. Sairen42 05:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Sairen42 -- otherwise exterminate --Fred_the_Dalek 07:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fred_the_Dalek. --Jacobw 10:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - 'no googles no entry' --Doc Glasgow 16:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge only if verified --Doc Glasgow 08:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Lucid dreaming, no redirect. Megan1967 06:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• del r3m0t ^talk 05:59, May 24, 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. —Xezbeth 07:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mystic Fox Forums

[A forum of 650 members] Lotsofissues 01:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, very VERY few forums are worthy of inclusion here. THIS one certainly isn't. Master Thief Garrett 04:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all but the most notable forums. --the wub (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Had it on watch, was going to get to it myself. Mr Bound 10:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Garrett and Wub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Linuxbeak | Desk 02:25, May 21, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Max Television

A google search confirms what I believe: this is all make-believe stuff. ErikNY 01:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. E=MC^2 T@lk 01:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fiction posing as fact, unverifiable. Barno 01:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. And I think the four largest are FOX, CBS, NBC and ABC. Of course, residing in Norway, i wouldn't really know. Am I right? Sjakkalle 08:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Works of fiction don't belong on Wikipedia, no matter how carefully thought out they are. I'd encourage the author of this (and the various other associated hoax articles) to put up his own webpage on the subject, instead of filling up Wikipedia with made up stuff. --Jacobw 11:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable . I've heard of a SetMax Channel in India but I'm sure it has nothing to do with this fictitious Max Television . --IncMan 14:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A public TV service starting in 1929!?!?!? Same sort of historically unresearched stuff as war fiction writers writing about AK47's being used in WWII. Sling it in the crusher. Anthony Appleyard 16:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not even a very good hoax. Unlike the Eyre Empire, which at least tried hard to include verifiable material, this is just too-easily shot down. RickK 21:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Frjwoolley 23:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This hoax goes to Wiki Hell. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:34, 2005 May 20 (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 to WLS-TV. Deathphoenix 14:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

WENR-TV

Imaginary affiliate of imaginary network (Max Television). ErikNY 01:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Who is creating these pages? E=MC^2 T@lk 01:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• • These two articles were created by three anon IPs in the block 209.175.168.xxx, where xxx = 155, 134, or 137. Probably one person on a dialup account or a group of friends in one area. So I'll facetiously answer E=MC^2's question: "some wiener". Barno 01:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• And I'll more sincerely vote delete, unverifiable. Barno 01:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to WLS-TV. WENR-TV was indeed a television station [1], for four years from 1948 to 1953, when it merged with WBKB-TV (unrelated to today's WBKB). In 1968, WBKB's name was changed to WLS-TV, where it remains today. [2] So all the details on this page seem wrong, but the call letters are valid. --BaronLarf 03:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, for the reasons given by BaronLarf. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per BaronLarf. — RJH 16:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge per BaronLarf since the fictional content appears to no longer be there anymore. 23skidoo 13:10, 20 May 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 with Military service. Deathphoenix 15:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Enlisted

Dictdef. Has been transwikied. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:29, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• But do we have an article on enlisted personnel? -- BD2412 ^talk 04:05, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 06:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep room for expansion, move to enlisting, add stub notice. Dunc|☺ 12:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge → Military service and redirect. --Allen3 ^talk 14:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 18 'what links here's. Can expand concerning military ranks, military law, etc. RJFJR 16:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • A redirect would solve the links as well. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:10, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Merge per Allen. Radiant_* 10:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs more detail and information. Military officer has an article, and terms of enlistment should be clarified as well as Military service <> Who 10:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and expand Yuckfoo 02:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as recommended by Allen. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:21, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
• Non-commissioned officer covers enlisted personnel. I cannot, from a brief search, find anything that covers the process of enlisting. Whatever the fate of the content, this is the wrong title for the article. At the very least, rename from adjective to gerund, as per Duncharris and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). Uncle G 15:46, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• keep Usefull information. I always wondered about this. This page was usefull to me. --68.163.221.235 17:43, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Kibei

Dictdef for Japanese, has been transwikied. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:38, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 06:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Japanese-Americans born in the United States but primarily educated in Japan are worthy of coverage. Kappa 13:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded. I could see that there might be an encyclopedia article on this topic, but it might be just a dicdef. Prove it's worthy of keeping and you'll have my vote. Meelar (talk) 16:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dic def. JamesBurns 09:38, 23 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Nephs

Neologism, dictdef. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:40, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete irrelevant --IncMan 14:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:21, 19 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Lair

Dictdef. No useful information is included here not included in other articles. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Weak keep as useful through-link from "animal" articles which mention lairs --Simon Cursitor 07:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Encyclopaedic topic. Megan1967 07:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with both Simoncursitor and Megan1967. Sjakkalle 08:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, potential to expand almost indefinitely. Kappa 13:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --JiFish 13:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)*
• Comment The word is mentioned in Wiktionary and American Heritage Dictionary . Can't see any concrete point against the article .--IncMan 14:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Being a word mentioned in AHD and Wiktionary is no guarantee of a Wikipedia article. Dictionaries are about words. Wikipedia is about people, places, concepts, events, and things; not about words. Many words are not the titles of articles about people, places, concepts, events, and things. Further: Many words that are, do not represent distinct people, places, concepts, events, and things. (The converse is true, too. That something is the title of an encyclopaedia article does not warrant its entry in a dictionary. New Zealand general election 2005 is not a word that warrants a dictionary entry, for example.) Uncle G 16:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- Lochaber 16:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Added a line about mythology and dragons and monsters and role playing games. Whooot! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• K33p! Teh w0w. Radiant_* 10:59, May 20, 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.

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, article completely reborn as disambig so no further contention. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Flynn

An article about a man whose main achievement appears to have been being first petty officer on a ship during WWII. A fine achievement, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia. A google search revealed lots of other people with the same name, but not him. Terrace4 02:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete→Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

  The disambiguation is fine. Keep →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 18:42, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Either delete or write an article on my dad, who was also a first petty officer in WWII. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well done Jacobw. I added a dab template, since that's what this page now is. Keep. Grutness...wha? 13:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Master Thief Garrett 11:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Keep, now recreated as disambig. Good job! Master Thief Garrett 13:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Once again, this is a case where a little detective work prior to a VFD would have made the VFD unnecessary. Before putting an article up for VFD, you should ALWAYS check "What links here". In this case, several articles on Canadian politics link to the Patrick Flynn article, and some google research indicates that the biography of the Canadian politician Patrick Flynn is indeed consistent with the info on this page. Matters are a little confused by the fact that Patrick Flynn is a common name. I've therefore turned Patrick Flynn into a disambiguation page, and created new pages for Patrick Flynn (Olympic athlete), Patrick Flynn (composer), and Patrick Flynn (Canadian politican). However, since I don't want to change the name of a page up for VfD, I can't rename the original page to indicate that it is now a disambiguation page. Perhaps the admin who closes the VfD can do so (assuming the vote ends up being keep.) --Jacobw 11:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not entirely needed. A lot of disambig pages are simply "Name" rather than "Name (disambig)". It saves there being a redlink to "Name" which someone inevitably fills with a stub, leading to a duplicate article. Grutness...wha?
    • Um... "Politican"??? Grutness...wha?
      • I'm tempted to claim that "politican" is an obscure Irish-Canadian spelling, but alas, it was just a rather embarrassing typo on my part. Sorry about that. Thanks for catching it, Grutness. I've now fixed it on the various relevant pages. --Jacobw 14:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Good job, Jacobw. Keep. -- Hoary 12:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep and good job, as above. Kappa 13:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--JiFish 13:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• KeepKlonimus 14:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Awesome keep - good job! I'm thinking of writing an article on the Magic of the Wikipedia vfd (but I won't, b/c it would be vfd'd). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:18, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • I would be happpy to see that in your userspace like Wiki-Hell. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 07:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Now this article has changed unrecognisably from the original point of contention, can we close this? We seem to have a consensus, and I don't think it's right to have a useful disambig up for Vfd. I'm going to close this (unless someone else does it first!) if no-one protests fairly soon. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 07:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Close with Keep. Klonimus 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ecome

Dictdef, has been transwikied. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:02, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete, sciene nelogism that isn't actually used--nixie 07:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:26, 19 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Eoi

Obscure business acronym/dictdef. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:03, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete: Dictdef and jargon. No one can or should attempt to be encyclopedic about acronymns. That's chasing the horizon. This one appears to have little to no usage as well. Geogre 10:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:26, 19 May 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.

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 speedy deleted by Burgundavia (no details stated). Master Thief Garrett 11:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I ONT O

Nonsense. --Malathion 02:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense. --Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, slang nonsense. Megan1967 06:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Thue | talk 07:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- localised slang (or is that localized :) - Longhair | Talk 10:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep the disambiguation page. Sjakkalle 09:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Impost

Dictdef. It may be in the 1911 britannica, but it's still a classic dictdef. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:13, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing in this rticle that isn't already mentioned in the wiktionary article. -- Mariocki ^TALK 02:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Given I only knew the taxation meaning, I would have found this useful if I'd come across the word in another context and was looking for clarification. If W~padeia and w~tionary were remote linked, so that dict-defs automatically came up, I'd support delete, but I would argue that this may be a useful disambiguation. No vote --Simon Cursitor 07:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Your vote is "delete", then, since MediaWiki:Noarticletext points to searching Wiktionary for an article and Wiktionary:MediaWiki:Noarticletext points to searching Wikipedia for an article. Uncle G 16:09, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. If Britannica thought there was potential to expand, who are we to disagree? Kappa 13:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Taxing. Klonimus 14:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I turned this into a disambiguation page and merged the relevant information into the related articles. Keep.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Works well as a kind of dab. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep the disambig. --Carnildo 21:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would just like to point out that WP:DAB states: The considerations of what Wikipedia is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. There is no point in adding one-line dictionary definitions to such a page.. If this is no longer the community consensus, should the policy be revised? --Tabor 22:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The policy is talking about one-line dictionary definitions that don't also take you to a page where the topic in discussed in more encylopedic detail. Kappa 23:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This situation is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style: that proposed style guide specifies that such links should be to anchor points where the topic is mentioned. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm still not impressed by the disambiguation, because a person looking for this information would do better to go to a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:26, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
• Delete, Britannica is not a good measure of a good encyclopedia--nixie 06:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And Larry Sanger accuses us of being anti-élitist? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:00, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Keep: I think it works fine as a disambig. --Durin 02:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 15:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Framingham Mall

Another non-notable mall with non-notable tenants in a non-notable location. Denni☯ 02:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete as boring and superfluous. I mean... non-notable and vanity. No one will ever search an encyclopedia for this. Sarg 06:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Merge with other possible ones in an article about Malls in Framingham or similar, as per User:Kappa. Sarg 12:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, triple NN. Radiant_* 08:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good stub, important to its local area. Kappa 13:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable large public object. Klonimus 14:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Its a popular mall in Massachusetts . No harm in keping it . --IncMan 15:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --JuntungWu 15:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all info can be put in the entry for the city of Framingham. Harvestdancer 16:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Worth noting that the location is notable enough for an article, as are many of the tenants. Should probably be cleaned up, though.
• Delete or Merge Mcfly85 17:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's nice that this is important to its local area, but this is an encyclopedia, not a Framingham business directory. Strictly regional interest and not encyclopedic. Quale 17:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good mall stub. -- Decumanus 18:35, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Delete: If you need to know about it, you're already there. Only things that have fame/importance outside of their immediate area are encyclopedic. This is not the Yellow Pages, nor the town website. Geogre 01:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. NoAccount 02:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- the Natick Mall next town over is one of the larger malls in Massachusetts, and while I don't know if it's notable enough for Wikipedia it's certainly more notable than what's essentially a glorified strip mall. Haikupoet 03:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please create a Natick Mall page then. Klonimus 22:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment is this any better then other mall articles? Is there a standard to compare a mall with to see if it is noteable? Vegaswikian 06:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't be an encyclopedia without it. Fg2 07:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which encyclopedias currently have an entry for this mall? Vegaswikian 07:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia Klonimus 22:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
      • QED, it is not encyclopedic. That says Delete Vegaswikian 05:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with some history of the various malls in the area, above the "notability" bar. Local landmark. --SPUI (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is important enough Yuckfoo 02:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Question -- I'm really not understanding all the keep votes here. Huge malls like the Mall of America or West Edmonton are certainly notable by their size, as are places like Quincy Market in Boston or Providence Place because they provide a shopping hub for their respective cities. But I don't see what's particularly encyclopedic about a minor minimall, especially one in close proximity to a major regional mall. To take another example in Massachusetts, the Wrentham Premium Outlets might be notable for being a fairly huge outlet mall that serves a sizeable portion of southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island. But that does not make the Cape Cod Outlet Mall noteable -- it's a much smaller outlet mall about an hour away near the Cape Cod Canal, and fairly well frequented, but it's nothing in comparison. Should both of those malls have their own articles despite the huge difference in size and importance? Haikupoet 06:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Some editors believe that everything should be kept. There are others who believe that many small articles should be deleted. You will get some of both in many of these votes. Vegaswikian 07:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Noone believes that "everything" should be kept. Kappa 11:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Also we have a problem with the concept of "have its own article" being a reason for deletion, instead of merging into "Malls in Framingham" for example. Kappa 08:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That seems to make sense. I think a merge with similar articles would be a good idea. Sarg 12:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Malls have owners. There are a handful of companies that own the majority of the larger malls. I think that at present, only 1 of the top 5 mall management companies has an article. Building the company article would allow malls to be listed there with some facts. Search would find the malls and if you really found the need, there could be redirects. Vegaswikian 18:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I think malls change owners more frequently than they change location. Kappa 18:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
          • A valid point. That would make the issue one of how hard would it be to move the entries to a new owner and leave the question of the need to maintain an ownership history for malls without their own article. Vegaswikian 18:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Putz

Dictdef. has been transwikied. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:42, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Proposal - make a list of epithets imported from foreign languages. Redirect this to it. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:10, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Delete. dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 06:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Transwiki'd, probably a CSD. I know it was listed there, but I, at least, was reluctant because there had been a big problem with a -bot driven tagging earlier. At any rate, once transwiki'd, I think it's an automatic delete. Geogre 11:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir to list of insults. Radiant_* 11:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

TheGunOwner

I'm not sure if there should be an article on the website operated by this person, but I'm pretty sure the site operator isn't notable (and this is probably vanity). --W(t) 02:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete. Sholtar 02:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be vanity Terrace4 02:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete. I doubt he created it for himself but it's not notable either way. I think I went to a party at this guy's house once a few years ago, though. Still not quite notable. --Fastfission 05:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LivingWithStyle and merge basic identifying information only. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LivingWithStyle and merge basic identifying information only. I agree. If you guys would actually take the time to reconniter this site you would realise it is noteworthy for its size and scope. I'm sad that you can't see that Mr. Chapman has created something no-one (to my knowledge) have managed to sustain - a very large, co-operative (usually) community. That in itself would prove that it is more then basic vanity that drives this article. Plus he himself didn't write it. Oh.. merge the articles if needed, but am sick of people putting down that which they haven't experienced --Rathgar 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I tried to cleanup this article a little bit, and I am a member of these forums, which is a conflict of interest on my part. Sean 19:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Plebe

Dictdef, has been transwikied. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:52, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Redirect to plebs, which already contains this info. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:06, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Redirect to Plebs. Megan1967 06:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Plebs sounds good. Sjakkalle 08:20, 19 May 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. Sjakkalle 11:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiHangman_Tournament

Wikipedia is not a game server. This is a neat idea community-building, de-stressing idea, but that can and should happen on a fun-and-games WikiCity. The Wikipedia: namespace is intended for instructions, advice, policy, and related discussions. Unrelated items simply become clutter here. -- Beland 02:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: and what about the department of fun? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 03:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Userfy. Harmless. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:07, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. How irritating. If no one else is interested after about a week, I will happily move to my userspace. Demi ^T/_C 03:46, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep, community-building is a major goal of the wikipedia namespace. --Gmaxwell 03:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, community-building is important. Linuxbeak | Desk 04:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I respect Beland's principles, but I think a little clutter is okay. FreplySpang (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is part of WP:FUN, part of the community-building programs at Wikipedia. Beland, if you have an issue with this, please contribute to the relative talk pages, not VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I respectfully dissent with the above. Delete, I don't see how this advances encyclopedia-writing. Gazpacho 05:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, also an online community." (emphasis added) Gazpacho

• Comment surely wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and foremost and not a free hosting site for peoples wikigames? No vote on these. I dont disagree that community building is a good thing. Megan1967 06:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to userspace. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:26, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• "No Kill I" -- this probably deserves to be somewhere, but as probably not as an encyclopaedia article. Surely some-wiki takes these on, and a link can be subbed in --Simon Cursitor 07:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From the top of the Community Portal - "Together we are building an encyclopedia and a wiki community." --the wub (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- harmless fun. We're allowed to have that here, aren't we? - Longhair | Talk 08:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  Absolutely you're allowed to have fun and to hang out, but you should use Wikipedia's systems for encyclopedia writing, and other systems for other activites. Article collaborations are an example of having fun while advancing project goals. This is not. Gazpacho 22:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm sorry, but this is an encyclopedia first, and a community second. -- Scimitar
• Transwiki to Meta - Keep the project space on Wikipedia for the encyclopedia project and move community-building activities to Meta. Besides, maybe some members from other project might want to get involved. -- Netoholic @ 15:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep -- AlexR 16:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course - Beland lighten up (again) Brookie: A collector of little brown things 20:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and stop making VfD pages for each different tournament. Sholtar 19:10, May 21, 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. Sjakkalle 11:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Once_upon_a_time...

Wikipedia is not a forum for creative fiction. This is a neat idea community-building, de-stressing idea, but that can and should happen on a fun-and-games WikiCity. The Wikipedia: namespace is intended for instructions, advice, policy, and related discussions. Unrelated items simply become clutter here. -- Beland 02:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, community-building is a major goal of the wikipedia namespace. --Gmaxwell 03:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per what Gmaxwell said. Linuxbeak | Desk 04:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nominator hasn't given a reason to delete. Demi ^T/_C 04:11, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. This is part of WP:FUN, part of the community-building programs at Wikipedia. Beland, if you have an issue with this, please contribute to the relative talk pages, not VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I respectfully dissent with the above. Delete, I don't see how this advances encyclopedia-writing. Gazpacho 05:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to userspace. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 05:46, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Move to userspace lest this create a precedent for open-editing WP:NOR-ish projects. Great idea though, don't get me wrong about that. Master Thief Garrett 06:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't this want to be a separate Wiki of its own ? --Simon Cursitor 07:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From the top of the Community Portal - "Together we are building an encyclopedia and a wiki community." --the wub (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. its not encyclopedic, but it is in the wikipedia namespace so it's ok. could be really interesting. Bluemoose 16:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would have voted keep but nothing appears to be happening at the moment. For that reason delete, but should someone else set this up again it should be kept. T.A Stevenson 16:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. RickK 21:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, see Category:Wikipedia games.
• Transwiki to Wikicities or Meta. — Phil Welch 03:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Community-building project. And as far as the Wikipedia: namespace being only for policy-type things and related discussions, what about WP:BJAODN? Hermione1980 14:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course - Belan lighten up! Brookie: A collector of little brown things 20:11, 20 May 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. Sjakkalle 11:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikistory

Wikipedia is not a forum for creative fiction. This is a neat idea community-building, de-stressing idea, but that can and should happen on a fun-and-games WikiCity. The Wikipedia: namespace is intended for instructions, advice, policy, and related discussions. Unrelated items simply become clutter here. -- Beland 03:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This vote doesn't seem to have been posted on the Wikistory page

• Keep, community-building is a major goal of the wikipedia namespace. --Gmaxwell 03:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or Transwiki to meta. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 03:49, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep, per what Gmaxwell said. Linuxbeak | Desk 04:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see any reason to delete. Demi ^T/_C 04:09, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. This is part of WP:FUN, part of the community-building programs at Wikipedia. Beland, if you have an issue with this, please contribute to the relative talk pages, not VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I respectfully dissent with the above. Delete, I don't see how this advances encyclopedia-writing. Gazpacho 05:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reminds me of crazy forum games seen on GameFAQs etc. I second the above, NOT encyclopedic. Master Thief Garrett 07:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting. Is it notable/meritworthy/comprehensible/encyclopaedic ? No vote --Simon Cursitor 07:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From the top of the Community Portal - "Together we are building an encyclopedia and a wiki community." --the wub (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course - let's not be boring Brookie: A collector of little brown things 16:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, it's silly and of little value as a finished product, but as a process it is a community-building activity, and the benefits of keeping outweigh those of removing. Antandrus (talk) 16:56, 22 May 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. Deathphoenix 15:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chess championship

Wikipedia is not a game server. This is a neat idea community-building, de-stressing idea, but that can and should happen on a fun-and-games WikiCity. The Wikipedia: namespace is intended for instructions, advice, policy, and related discussions. Unrelated items simply become clutter here. -- Beland 03:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC) For those interested, as of this counting, there are 40 votes to keep (5 indicating strong keep), 6 votes to delete (not including the original post), 3 votes to Transwiki, 2 votes to move to userspace, and 1 vote to compromise. Linuxbeak | Desk 16:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Super Strong Keep. Hmwordock53

21:47, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Wikipedia need not be all business all the time. — Dan | Talk 03:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this vote should be merged with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mornington Crescent Championship. — Dan | Talk 03:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As pointed out above, we do have the department of fun. Seems harmless to me. ESkog 03:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. No, no, no, NO! Linuxbeak | Desk 03:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- AlexR 03:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; looks harmless; helps the sense of community. Besides I haven't gotten to play yet. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless fun banned on Wikipedia all the sudden? Ghost Freeman | Talk 03:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, were a developer complaining about the load or something there wouldn't be a debate. Gmaxwell 03:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless community fun in the spirit of Wikifun and the various silly listings of Wikipedians. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. But I just won Round 1! User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 03:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, time-wasting, use of huge resources as observers run analysis programs on their home supercomputers (participants of course aren't allowed to), promotion of violence and trash-talking on Wikipedia, humiliation of editors. Wait, I'm one of the worst offenders. Change vote to Keep.-gadfium 03:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

More seriously, we do need to accept that there are limits on how much we can use Wikipedia's resources for non-encylopedic activities. I recall when I was a newbie here that there was a Wikichess game on User:Lir's talk page, and another user argued that a precendent had been set which allowed her to have WikiSex on her talk page. Obviously I think that WikiChess is okay, so long as the people who are involved with it are also productive editors, but where do we draw the line?-gadfium 04:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I respect Beland's principles, but I think a little clutter is okay. FreplySpang (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User hasn't presented reasons these listings match the deletion criteria. Demi ^T/_C 03:49, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep Wikifun, all those reasons above. Also, if we delete this, how will I be able to participate in the next chess tournament? ;) Eric119 03:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless fun. Rhobite 03:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This objection should have been raised before we started the tournament. Now that we're well under way, of course I'm in favor of keeping it. However, if space at Wikipedia is terribly limited for this, maybe there's a different WikiSite where we can move the whole tournament. Next time around, maybe we can start in a WikiSite where there is more "space" (i. e. , memory) available? Maybe WikiNews??? H Padleckas 04:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If there was an issue with space or memory, we would have already heard about it. There is no problem. Linuxbeak | Desk 04:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Why the hell not? Kelly Martin 04:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sholtar 04:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. This is part of WP:FUN, part of the community-building programs at Wikipedia. Beland, if you have an issue with this, please contribute to the relative talk pages, not VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I respectfully dissent with the above. Delete, I don't see how this advances encyclopedia-writing. Gazpacho 05:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't advance encyclopedia writing. It advances the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia, and thus activities such as this are not only permissible, they are benificial. Sholtar 05:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 　Wikipedia is a community as well!--Jondel 06:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: in the spirit of "we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist" [3], this is unquestionably a valuable way to acertain a high standard among our editor who edit chess-related articles. (what, WP:don't twist quotations to make a point ? :) ) Rama 06:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course, we should not use Wikipedia as the Internet Chess club, but all of those playing in this tournament are productive users all round. Let's allow some fun and remember WP:IAR. Sjakkalle 07:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or transwiki. I'd like to point out that we did discuss this issue before the tournament started: Wikipedia talk:Chess championship#Isn't this for Wikicities?. I see Beland's point and I agree with it in principle, but on the other hand, precedent is only what we make of it. Does this mean Wikipedia will now freely host non-encyclopedia activities of all kinds? Of course not. Is it a better idea, a priori, to do this somewhere other than Wikipedia? Probably. We can still discuss that to our hearts' content, but if you ask me whether to delete this right now, I must answer no. JRM · Talk 07:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. You are just bitter because you could not sign up in time! Sam Hocevar 07:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to userspace. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:27, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. From the top of the Community Portal - "Together we are building an encyclopedia and a wiki community." --the wub (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I do have some deletionist tendencies, I see no harm in this (plus, I'm involved). Other games are played on Wikipedia as well--is it some sort of crime to organize a championship? Jonathan Christensen 08:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- harmless fun. We're allowed to have that here, aren't we? - Longhair | Talk 08:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- I can't believe people are asking this, of course keep! A better community means better articles - PLUS the tournament helps procure stuff to write about (various chess positions) in articles - all the games are recorded for posterity - with the uses of the templates, etc. -- Natalinasmpf 09:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I suppose that concensus at this point is keep, but I'll throw in my vote aswell. As JRM says, we did discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Chess championship, and my argument is the same here as it is there! This is for the wikipedia community, this is a place where we can interact and do something that isn't necessarily related to article writing and RFCs and vandal-fighting. Life in wikipedia can be fun too you know, and thats what we strive for! Lets WP:IAR and just play some chess! Gkhan 10:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Wikipedia: namespace is not merely for policy and discussions, but rather for a variety of meta-articles; see Wikipedia:BJAODN, Wikipedia:Unusual aticles, &c. Now an unused or inappropriate game page, on the other hand, might be better moved to a section of WP:FUN or its talk page, for discussion. +sj + 10:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• When all you have is a template, everything becomes a meta-template translusion problem. Surely it would be easier for you guys to set some Yahoo! Games accounts and play each other, and just record the results here? Pcb21| Pete 13:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be impractical, seeing that the participants are located all over the world. Playing on yahoo would not work, as it's in real-time. Plus, to have it located off of the wiki servers, let alone Wikipedia, would completely extinguish the purpose: to build positive relationships between active editors and to have fun while doing it. Linuxbeak | Desk 13:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

    Linuxbeak is making a strong argument here: the purpose is not "to go and play chess with others somewhere"; that, indeed, could be done anywhere and with anyone. The goal is to have fun with your fellow editors—like a LAN party after hours at the office. Except for setting precedent, which is trivially guarded against, and offending those people who don't want to see it on the pure principle of the thing, this is really not harming anyone, and benefitting quite a few. We could conceivably move these things to somewhere else—Wikicities or Meta spring to mind—but too far away from the wiki and it loses its purpose. Strictly speaking, user talk pages shouldn't exist either—anything you cannot say on an article talk page is not directly benefitting articles, after all. But talk pages are very obviously indirectly beneficial. This is just drawing suspicious stares because it's too indirect for some. Yes, the encyclopedia always comes first—but that doesn't mean it's the only thing we can ever focus on. JRM · Talk 17:56, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Meta - Keep the project space on Wikipedia for the encyclopedia project and move community-building activities to Meta. Besides, maybe some members from other project might want to get involved. -- Netoholic @ 15:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Things like this show the community in Wikipedia and are only good for bringing in new contributors. Hedley 16:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Rook 10. Failing that, keep. This is a new phenominon, to be sure, but I think if this wiki is going to survive in the long run, then we need to ensure we have a strong community, not just a strong infrastructure. --InShaneee 16:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to autofellatio. Barring that, keep :) – ugen64 16:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We catalouge other chess championships. What gives anyone the right to say that the two Fool's mates that we've already had in this champoionship isn't worthy of the wiki pages? The side point of this is that people can see games that ordinary people play, and learn how things such as the notation, the opening moves, and the game endings relate to each other. I'm a chess player, yet this has still been a learning experence for me. It shouldn't be taken away from others. NeoThermic 16:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for most of the above reasons. Daniel 16:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep this, or eradicate silly stuff like nihilartikels etc. from the userspace. By which I meantersay, keep, wtf?. --Bishonen | talk 19:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, club person that proposed the VfD with Google cluebat and a cluebyfour. Extra points for style and form. Project2501a 20:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, given how overwelmingly huge VfD is getting, should items in the Wikipedia namespace be dealt with somewhere else func(talk) 20:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm just grateful it's not somehow in the main article namespace. :-/ Community-building is important, but I think Wikipedians should be wary of its purpose as some sort of "online club" eclipsing its mission as an encyclopedia. --Tabor 22:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --jacobolus (t) 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I realise it's pointless voting delete when there are already so many keep votes, but I really can't agree to this being kept in the project namespace. It has nothing to do with the project, which is supposed to be about building an encyclopedia. There are already over 100 archives of the Wikifun page. Having dozens of these chess and other games pages is getting out of hand now. Angela. 01:36, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -Frazzydee|✍ 01:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Or transwiki to Wikicities. --Larus.r 10:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is no worse than Wikistory and that's not up for vfd! A few areas of distraaction are good for Wikistress etc. Brookie: A collector of little brown things 15:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikistory is the item right above this one on the VfD page, I think? Or am I misreading a joke? --Tabor 21:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with user:Angela. If a Wikipedian wants to play chess with me then let me know on Yahoo! Messenger. My userid is andrieskd [4]Andries 20:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Neutrality^talk 20:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If this was to be deleted, it would be setting an example for anything 'fun', including the million pool, Wikistory, Wikistress images and BJAODN. It would be a statement, to outsiders, that Wikipedians are old grumpy folk who don't believe in 'fun'. Hedley 21:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. It's a cool idea, but this namespace is an encyclopedia. -- Scimitar
• Delete, totally unrelated to the encyclopedia. Please note that this grumpy old codger supports such "fun" activities as April Fool's jokes on Wikipedia and has no objections to Wikifun, because both of these relate in some way to the encyclopedia. But Wikichess and any other activities that have no connection whatsoever to Wikipedia, where the wiki is just being used to pursue other interests, don't belong here. The right place for this is actually Wikicities. --Michael Snow 01:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: How is it not related to the encyclopedia? You realise that the games played out during the tournament will provide good examples about chess concepts, right? Especially when later tournaments will move on into variants. It has connection to Wikipedia in the idea that also, thus strengthens the community with all the organisation taking place and that moving to WikiCities would defeat the entire purpose. -- Natalinasmpf 03:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Using the games as examples of chess concepts in the articles about chess would violate the policy that we keep all meta-activity out of the encyclopedia itself, a rule that is if anything even stricter than any general restrictions on activity unrelated to the encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 04:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Compromise: First, we have to distinguish between Wikipedia-related games (which have always been OK) and non-Wikipedia-related ones. A few non-Wikipedia-related games in the Wikipedia: namespace are fine. What could become a problem, I think, is that the Wikipedia:Sandbox is presently an incubator for these things. I suggest getting rid of the game-related subpages. When all games have to be created in the Wikipedia: namespace or User: namespace, the threshold for starting new ones will be increased. The problem is that once a game has a certain number of players, it will be virtually impossible to get rid of it, as all those who play will vote to keep it, and many of those who'd like to try it will do so as well. I hope we are all in agreement that game-related activity on Wikipedia should be limited.--Eloquence* 02:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to a special page Something like this guy's userpage of another similar page to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia articles. MGStone 02:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - but the its related to Wikipedia as the events taken here will provide information to contribute directly back to the chess articles, provide vital examples or demonstration of the concepts, etc. -- Natalinasmpf 03:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

please note that the encyclopedia is financed with donated money. How are we going to explain this to the donators? Andries 11:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Are the donators against community building activities? -- Natalinasmpf 14:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a cheap shot to me. Do you want me to calculate the amount of money it costs us to host and serve just these pages? I'm sure the players could pay for it themselves. Shall I also offer a few estimates as to how much it costs us to host all those silly, gimmicky user pages people put up, and the amount of time and storage wasted on talk page messages not immediately related to the encyclopedia? Can we fine people who engage in personal attacks, trollery, petty feuds and edit wars for wasting donated money? If we're going to talk money, where's the end to it? JRM · Talk 14:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Very very very cheap shot. if someone is donating into a free (as in liberty) software/content project, they know what they donate into! FREE BEER FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND EDITORS! :D (This comment added by Project2501a Demi ^T/_C 19:25, 2005 May 21 (UTC))

• Strong keep. Yet ANOTHER mindless nomination to, and misuse of, VfD. This is in the private namespace. It is community building (for a Wiki is just as strong as its community ties) and is educational. --Oldak Quill 18:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Every company I've ever worked for (and I've worked for quite a few) sponsored social activities on company time, with company resources and often directly on the company's dime. If we were a traditional encyclopedia, the editors would be getting together to gab, have contests, celebrate birthdays, etc., and this is no different. Actually, the difference is that the cost to the site is far less than in these other scenarios. Demi ^T/_C 18:57, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
• Comment: At the request of Luigi30, I've moved what used to be the Games Wikicity to Gameinfo, leaving Games free for anyone wanting a wiki on which to play games. Angela. 05:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Consensus seems to have been reached - can we wrap this up? -- Natalinasmpf 00:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, strongly agree w Demi. Sam Spade 11:22, 26 May 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. Sjakkalle 11:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship

Wikipedia is not a game server. This is a neat idea community-building, de-stressing idea, but that can and should happen on a fun-and-games WikiCity. The Wikipedia: namespace is intended for instructions, advice, policy, and related discussions. Unrelated items simply become clutter here. -- Beland 03:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. – ugen64 03:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Wikipedia need not be all business all the time. — Dan | Talk 03:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As pointed out above, we do have the department of fun. Seems harmless to me. ESkog 03:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and don't be such a spoilsport. -- AlexR 03:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agreed with AlexR. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I respect Beland's principles, but I think a little clutter is okay. FreplySpang (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia namespace is not an encyclopedia. Gmaxwell 03:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Delete, now that I realize that it's not really a game but rather a nonsense spewing contest. :( --Gmaxwell 16:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The deletion isn't really supported by anything, so I don't really think a reason is needed. Demi ^T/_C 03:54, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep. Sholtar 04:25, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• East Finchley. (erm... keep) Grutness...wha? 04:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is part of WP:FUN, part of the community-building programs at Wikipedia. Beland, if you have an issue with this, please contribute to the relative talk pages, not VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I have no idea what this is. Gazpacho 05:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't worry - it doesn't take long to learn. The rules are pretty straightforward. Totteridge and Whetstone. See Mornington Crescent (game). Grutness...wha? 07:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• York Road (now closed)--Lady Constance 07:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From the top of the Community Portal - "Together we are building an encyclopedia and a wiki community." --the wub (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Bank. Joe D (t) 11:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• British Museum --Lady Constance 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Sneaky backlooping traverse to Monument. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Mornington Crescent - (possibly cheating but I prefer to call it "trumping"). Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:44, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you allowed diagonals when trumping? Joe D (t) 16:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but not NE to SW. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta - Keep the project space on Wikipedia for the encyclopedia project and move community-building activities to Meta. Besides, maybe some members from other project might want to get involved. -- Netoholic @ 15:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Meta is miles up the Piccadilly! Evidently a novice. Slapped you up a Perpendicular Zonal Gambit all the way to Elephant and Castle. 81.153.154.161 15:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm keeping myself out of the game by comparing it to Double Fanucci. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 16:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I don't usually play to this kind of opening (I'm more of a king's pawn man) but as you all seem to be in knip at the moment, I'll make a cautious shunt into Shepherd's Bush (Hammersmith and City Line) and Keep (with the Travelcard option, of course) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• 76th Street, using the "no one will get the joke" rule. --SPUI (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and Ealing Broadway. I'm sure that's allowed if we're playing Travelcard. DJ Clayworth 21:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm. I seem to be in prig. A wheeltapper's variant will take me to Swiss Cottage, though. (this is getting silly) Grutness...wha? 01:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• The controversial 1945 Mornington Crescent Final Ruling (paragraph 13.b46) states that this can only be deleted in even number years (when the last player skipped Baron's Court and went strait to Hammersmith). Try again next year. keep. Oh, and South Kensington. Sabine's Sunbird 02:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• SPUI is using an entirely illegal move according to the Second Amendment to the Proceedings of the 1998 Overseas MC conference. The only permissible move under those circumstances is The Tunnel Between Park Street and Downtown Crossing, though before the Second Amendment Scollay Under would have been an allowable move under the Blue Line Clause (removed because of an ambiguity in paragraph 3 -- look it up). Haikupoet 03:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot: Keep on general principle, and Potsdamer Platz. If anyone's got a problem with that I'm going to cite the Third Amendment to the OSMCC Proceedings. Haikupoet 03:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You're not permitted to cite amendments that you voted against. Uncle G 08:37, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ. That may be the case in Humberside rules (or whatever strange variant of the rulebook you're using) but it's explicitly permitted under every other ruleset I've seen. In any case the "If you've got it flaunt it" rule from the Beverly Hills conference in 2003 supersedes all other rulings on the matter. The Commission said so. Haikupoet 15:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Nonetheless, the reciprocal coupling restriction applies. Uncle G 17:13, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • Winter Street Concourse is banned due to its shady past. Try Dudley. --SPUI (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Dollis Hill. Now you have a problem, because under the Jubilee Extension Rule (3rd revision, wheelchair access) straddles are disallowed and the only way out of the loop is to speedy delete this discussion page so that the next player is shunted back up the line to WP:VFU. Ha! Uncle G 08:37, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Might I suggest moving this vfd debate to BJAODN? Or would you prefer a reverse triple-feeder slide (as played, you will recall, by Mexican grand-master Diego Catahualpa at the 1997 World Championships), which should get us to...hmm... High Barnet? Grutness...wha? 10:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to this question, all I can say is I'm sorry, I haven't a clue. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep [Using the standard non-linear cross-over exemption!] Brookie: A collector of little brown things 15:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - and while this 'debate' looks like it belongs in BJAODN, I think heading there right now would place me in knip, so following Haikupoet, I move Bobigny Pablo Picasso.
• Dollis Hill. ☺ Uncle G 17:13, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Oh no! Not the Dollis Hill loop, Trafalgar Square. Strong keep, all wiki and no play makes Rje a dull boy, all wiki... Rje 18:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Boneheads - you can't call Dollis Hill here - the 4th protocol forbids it! Keep! InTheFullnessOfTime 19:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with weaker self-consensus then the chess one, simply as this seems stupid to me. Hedley 21:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and all the Poke/Star Wars/*cruft seems insensibly stupid to me, but nobody's VFDing it all. --FCYTravis 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm citing the Governmental Imbecility Codicil in order to make a backwards maximum aerial to El Cerrito del Norte - and that counts as a keep --FCYTravis 23:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Mile End, thus lifting me out of prig... but into knip. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:25, 21 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Aduial

Even a hard-core Tolkien fan like me doesn't want to see a bunch of entries for semi-unimportant Elvish words. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 03:00, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Transwiki to the Elvish Wiktionary (not to be confused with the Elvis Wiktionary). -- BD2412 ^talk 03:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

  There is no Elvish Wiktionary. But now that you mention it... →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 03:48, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

  The "English" Wiktionary's goal is actually to encompass all languages (even fictional ones I'm sure), so this would be a valid entry. But, I hasten to point out, this has already been transwikied, just like it says on the talk and history pages. Check next time. In any case, why can't we just redirect to Middle-earth? --Dmcdevit 04:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  I did check. I Vfd-ed it because it had been transwikied (just forgot to mention that). As to redirecting to Middle-earth, what's the point. If I came across a redirect like that, I would nominate the redirect for deletion. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 05:48, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

  I was referring to the voters for "transwiki". But anyway, redirects are cheap, and there's no need to waste effort deleting the unless they are hurtful. What if some Tolkien die-hard searched for this term? What's the harm in redirecting them to Middle-earth, which is, in fact, what the word means in Elvish. --Dmcdevit 06:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to English Wiktionary (since the entry is written in English). Eric119 03:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the entry has already been transwikied, my vote becomes plain delete. Eric119 04:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and lock entry to stop "cruft" --Simon Cursitor 07:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete/speedy -- now duplicate material. As for stopping the cruft, we're way, way, way too late for that when it comes to Tolkeinland. We can still stem the tide of neo-Hitchhiker's Guide and Star Wars-revivus, but the Middle Earthlings have already devastated the crops. Geogre 11:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a dictdef of a word in a made-up language. Really bad precedent if we started keeping every word in Elvish, Klingon, et. al. RickK 21:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this isn't even useful as a dictionary entry: it doesn't specify which Elvish language it's part of -- Tolkein created at least a dozen! --Carnildo 21:41, 19 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Red wine stain remover

Dicdef, unlikely to become more than that. --Jemiller226 03:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 03:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's good to know how to get stains out, but I'm not sure WP is the place for that. Master Thief Garrett 05:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- we don't need an article on removing every type of stain do we? - Longhair | Talk 09:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: In this form, a dictdef. Were it a list of recipes and the like, it would be appropriate for Wikibooks/Wikiguides. Geogre 11:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's more of a tautology than a dictionary definition, given that the article isn't defining a word, but is pretty much saying that "a red wine stain remover is a remover for red wine stains". You're right that Wikibooks would happily take a wikibook on housekeeping, though. (I'm surprised that there isn't one.) Uncle G 17:10, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Hmm. Should this info be merged into a new stain remover article? That article could contain what chemicals are often used, what was used to remove stains in the past, etc. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want to be bold and make one I'd probably agree, but only if it too could be made useful. In the meantime I suppose it should stay the way it is. Master Thief Garrett 13:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • merge with Stain. Radiant_* 13:44, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - The article is of no use ,unless it does not mention the working ,composition and other relevant information regarding the item . Any one would know that a Red wine stain remover ,removes wine stains .--IncMan 15:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, it just states the obvious, and doesn't mention "home remedy" alternatives like soft drinks. Unless of course you're one of those who believe that red wine takes out soda stains *Home Improvement injoke* Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Present state of article as a stub is not grounds for deletion as article could be expanded. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's been sitting untouched for months (aside from someone removing the stub tag today), and you wrote the article. Perhaps if you think it's worth keeping, you'd have worked on it to make it useful sometime in the past 5+ months? --Jemiller226 18:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, current status or not, this is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 21:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. First and foremost, a stain remover article should be created. Second, there needs some relevant content and references to warrant such an article, otherwise it will never ever be encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to stain remover and expand. Gazpacho 05:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move per Gazpacho MicahMN | Talk 18:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mikeage 14:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete stevenmattern 10:05, 24 May 2005

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Neurokinetic harmonics

I think this is original research. Like the author says, his articles should deleted. Also check out Neurokinetics. --Tubby 03:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both, original research. --the wub (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh delete (probably both) 3 non-wiki googles --Doc Glasgow 12:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both--JiFish 13:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless we need an article on rhythmic head banging. :-) — RJH 16:34, 19 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Edd Kalehoff

If this composer is notable, he probably needs to be merged with an article regarding the projects he worked with.

Posted on VFD by Ryan Prior

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I just rewrote the article to a brief {{Composer-stub}}, adding a brief "Selected filmography" and a link to this person's entry in IMDB.com. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Alas, I'm not fond of it, but there are some folks who argue, very well, that film and television composers are composers. Once upon a time, people dismissed Morricone's music, and now he's recognized as a great. I hope music classes don't earnestly study the oeuvre of Mike Post et al. in the future, but this composer wrote theme songs for several shows, and that's a remarkable achievement. Geogre 11:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Geogre. I wonder if he feels the same way about game score composers. Kappa 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Not at all. 8 tone bleep music is not a composition. There is a difference between a composer and a hack. When composers are sought for games, perhaps, but not when twitch fans simply believe their passtime to be OMG important like, because there is also a difference between the solipcism of adolescents and the criticism of adults. Geogre 01:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think you've played many recent video games, maybe you also haven't read WP:NPOV. Kappa 09:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe that's why I don't write articles about blip scores, I think they're fancruft. It's a possibility anyway. Otherwise, what you've got is not a "videogame composer," but a composer. Free yourself from the console. If a guy can't stand as a composer, he can't stand as a videogame composer, either. The reason for Ed Kalehoff's inclusion is that film and TV composers are being considered as composers, not as people who satisfy tube addicts. It doesn't matter what I or you think of the quality: are these composers the subject of study? If you have evidence that a SuperMario composer is being studied in Juliard, then bright that forward, please. Geogre 15:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He actually is a very well-known composer of TV themes. The article is a little bad and could use a revision and expansion. Mcfly85 17:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Someone who is more knowlegeable should add more information about him. He is a very prolific television composer. Would you dismiss Lalo Schifrin as a television composer, since he did lots of TV work? How about John Williams who did oodles of TV work? The article does need to be expanded, maybe that would make you happy?!
• Keep Composer of lots and lots of TV music. TrbleClef 20:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Kalehoff has written enough music for game shows alone to deserve his own entry. Some of the stuff he has written is iconic, like the cues and theme he wrote for The Price is Right. As someone else here said, would you dismiss John Williams because he did a lot of TV work? I think not. The person who marked this for deletion, seems to be biased for some reason against Kalehoff.

From my post in User talk:Ryan Prior:

• • In your opinion what defines "not widely recognized"? Edd Kalehoff has written some of the most widely recognized music in the United States including the very recognizable and iconic theme to The Price is Right (along with other cues for the show). He has composed music for several television game shows and is well known for that. However, Kalehoff's contributions to music are not limited to television, he is well known within the music industry (especially in New York) as one of the best synth/keyboard players around and has done some innovative things with it, although you would most likely dismiss that since you never heard of him (or at least act as if you do).

Now isn't the whole point of an encyclopedia to look information up? If you just RTFM you would see that the Edd Kalehoff article is just a stub worthy of expansion!

• Someone put this in for me and I should have wrote that here to start off with. I think the person who proposed the article for deletion may not understand the concept of looking up information. To them I say: I have looked at your track record you seem to advocate deleting a lot of articles that would be better off expanded. Are you some sort of anorak who just has a limited field of knowledge?

From the Broadcast Music Incorporated [website]:

• "BMI TV, film, theater and classical composers are equally successful. BMI legends such as Mike Post of "NYPD Blue," fame or Ed Kalehoff, who wrote the opening for "Monday Night Football," Charlie Fox, who penned numerous TV hits, including "Happy Days," and WG Snuffy Walden, whose first big theme was for "ThirtySomething" are a small sample of the composers represented by BMI."

Now on a website geared to his peers they call him a legend and mention hime in the same sentence as three major composers, I think it would be bloody foolish not to include hime here. Spotteddogsdotorg 17:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The person who thought the Edd Kalehoff article is worthy of deletion seems not to meet any of the qualifications for deletion, but instead meets all the qualifications for expansion.Tobyvonmeistersinger 13:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep He seems to be a very prolific composer who is recognized by his peers as a legend as the poster above mentions, and so what most of his work is in TV. I didn't know that he did the music for The Price is Right and Monday Night Football, his bio linked the two and now I know something new. Toasthaven 15:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Super Mario characters, since it's already been merged. Deathphoenix 15:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Angry Sun

Belongs in the Super Mario 3 article if anywhere - but the term is generic enough that it ought not redirect there. Delete.

Posted on VFD by BD2412

• Delete, non-notable even IN the Mario world. Master Thief Garrett 05:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Merge with List of Super Mario characters, make this page a writeups-and-links page, just like The Legend of Zelda series characters is. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, mario cruft. Megan1967 07:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I saw this when it was brand new but didn't VfD it because I wasn't really sure what to do with it. It's been some time since the original post, and it hasn't changed, so it doesn't look like it's going anywhere, and isn't really notable even within the context of video games.
  • Whoops, forgot to sign the above: Doozer (Talk) 07:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I seem to think that this is the main enemy in one of the levels and many of the other Super Mario enemies have their own article. If keep is not possible, give it a mention and redirected to List of Super Mario characters. Sjakkalle 07:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes but the ones with their own pages are Koopas and Goombas, much more notable, they even had their own rap IIRC. Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Take a look at all the links at List of Super Mario characters. There are more enemies than the Koopa and the Goomba with their own article. Sjakkalle 09:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • If anyone cares to merge all the Mario character stubs, that will be fine, the only reason I voted keep and not merge, was because the other characters had their own article. Then, if someone wants to make serious expansions they can make separate articles. Goomba is an example of how good an article on this can become. Sjakkalle 06:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT and if I have some more time I'll consider merging a lot of stubs on the List of Super Mario characters. Radiant_* 10:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well considering my recent ruthlessness with the Zelda characters, this is a surprising list of separate stubby characters. Merge them all! Merge I say! Let's make my work the unnofficial standard throughout WP! Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle, notable fictional thing. Kappa 13:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Radiant. Appears in one level in one game, even if he is the focus of the level. We don't need an entry on every Mario enemy. However, while "Angry Sun" is general, it isn't exactly something I see becoming an encyclopedia entry, so the redirect seems fine. --Yoshi348 16:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Two levels, actually. Still doesn't need its own article, IMO, but should be redirected to the list. Firebug 03:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into Super Mario 3 --IncMan 18:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per WP:FICT. Being present in two levels out of 100+ in one video game hardly qualifies for being a "major character". --Carnildo 21:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Super Mario characters, to which I've added it. Firebug 03:32, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Divine Brown

POV, non-notable DEL Who 06:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems to have been VfDed without actually ending up on the VfD page. I've added it now, although I'm neutral as to the article itself. -- Vardion 05:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've rewritten it to be more NPOV, but I don't know whether it should be kept. -- Vardion 01:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, NPOV, of interest to large numbers of people, better as a separate article from Hugh Grant. Failing keep, merge with Hugh Grant. Kappa 06:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Hugh Grant. Not notable outside of that particular incident. Megan1967 07:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought that had happened already... [/rimshot] Kinitawowi 15:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- some people will remember her name when Mr.Grant is merely a footnote in fringe Brit-entertainment. --Simon Cursitor 07:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect that for most people, however, it will be the other way around. Uncle G 17:32, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• keepe.Dunc|☺ 10:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect: Attendant fame redirects to the source of the fame. He had $50 hanging out the window, and she came to the car. (shrug) So far as I know, she made one attempted porn afterward and was so bad in it that there was no more career for her. Geogre 11:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known incident in the 1990's. Capitalistroadster 11:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - she managed to work the incident into more than her 15 minutes. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep - even the Germans know her name.I have a question: Is it allowed to upload her mugshot? [5] MutterErde 15:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say that would be a fair use of the image. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:40, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
    • OK, Thank you. I did it. Let´s wait and see :-) Greetings MutterErde 19:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Hugh Grant. Not notable on her own. RickK 21:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:24, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per the above. Radiant_* 11:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep***. Divine Brown is a part of history now and should stand as her own article. People may want to research people like her and there isn't any other information available anywhere about her. Just leave the article and allow updates. You never know if she could become a government official or anything (everybody else does despite their pasts). She also may become a vital part of Black History in the future. PLEASE DON'T MERGE or DELETE!!! User:pauldavies
  • The above is in reality User:209.240.205.62. RickK 20:47, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • 209.240.205.62, everything past your first sentence is a reason for deletion. If there "isn't any other information available anywhere about her", then this article would be unverifiable. (Your claim is false, however.) If she "could become a government official" or "a vital part of Black History", but hasn't done so yet, then she doesn't belong belong because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Uncle G 17:32, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Keep, she may not go down in history like Jezebel, but there will be people curious about her who want a little more information than can fairly be diverted on Hugh's page--Sherurcij 17:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merger counterindicated because, in the Hugh Grant article, this level of detail about Brown would be clutter. JamesMLane 09:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Hugh Grant. Leanne 05:04, 25 May 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.

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 Speedy Deleted by Duncharris, "no content-just a photo". Master Thief Garrett 11:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Metro Manila Development Authority

Has no textual content other than a crank picture which has no copyright info I might add. - Lucky13pjn 05:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, empty article. Megan1967 07:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No content, mere picture. I think it's safe to just append {{delete}}-tags on things like this. Sjakkalle 08:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Charles Jefferson

Article appears to be a hoax. The television station that the subject allegedly worked for did not exist under those call letters during the period described, and the writer is the same person who brought us the fictional television network Max Television. --Metropolitan90 05:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably hoax. Average Earthman 09:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems pretty clear that this is a fictional extension of the fictional universe of Max Television.--Jacobw 11:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think I've heard of WENR-TV but definitely not Max Television and this Charles guy . Even google doesn't have links regarding the same . Its a HOAX according to me. --IncMan 18:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone needs some pills. Mike H 00:51, May 22, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Consumer eugenics

Is this something? It should at least be expanded. Eixo 05:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. This is borderline. Close to 1000 Google hits. Mention in the UK parliament [6]. An encyclopaedia topic that will expand in future due to increasing public access to genetic technology. Megan1967 07:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Megan, and allow for eugenic growth. Kappa 13:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' --Cynical 14:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. only 71 unique hits. RickK 21:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RickK. Radiant_* 11:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Leanne 05:05, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Zeyus

912 Googles (w/ filtering) and even then many hits are forummers with the same username. Non-notable. Master Thief Garrett 05:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsigned band. I'm sure they're wonderful, but that doesn't matter. Geogre 11:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well , I've heard of the Greek God Zeus but am not familiar to nothing called Zeyus . Not notable .--IncMan 16:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • There was a Dr. Zaius in Planet of the Apes... heheheh... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Zeus. Radiant_* 11:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article has nothing to w/ Zeus . --IncMan 11:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's not an official spelling of Zeus to my knowledge... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. Leanne 05:06, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Morison

296 Googles, non-notable. Almost reads like nonsense, but further study shows it's legit. Master Thief Garrett 06:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Thinker of Deep Thoughts. Wants to be recognized as a 23 year old theologian, when his best shot would have been as an artist. However, the shows were group shows and local. (If he's really determinist, then he won't be surprised that his vanity article is deleted.) Geogre 11:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• predestined for deletion - few of the googles are about this TM anyway--Doc Glasgow 12:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Since God sneezed out the universe, it has always been determined that this article would be deleted as vanity with no indication of sufficient significance. 205.247.102.130 15:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable . Nothing about Thomas Morison from Australia in Google . --IncMan 16:31, May 19, 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 move to Maikel Aerts, and wikify. Sjakkalle 11:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Michel Aerts

150 Googles (when using current misspelled page title!), never even scored once, hugely non-notable. Master Thief Garrett 06:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• He's a goalkeeper, he's not supposed to score, is he? That said, with 150 Googles, he probably deserves to be deleted. PlatypeanArchcow 06:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Maikel Aerts. Scores (pardon the pun) over 5,700 Google hits under that name, see [7]. Megan1967 07:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh! I didn't spot the alternate name! Master Thief Garrett 09:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: anyone know what the minimum soccer notability is? I mean, 5700 sounds good, but Zinedine Zidane gets 299,000. Of course that could be an unfair comparison for all I know, but that's the only soccer player I can think of offhand. Master Thief Garrett 09:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • For comparison, Ryan Nelsen, national captain of minor soccer nation (New Zealand) and English Premier league player with Blackburn Rovers, gets 14,300. I'd ay 5,700 is notable enough. But move it to the more common spelling! Grutness...wha? 14:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That's interesting. Yes we're a very minor soccer nation indeed... heck, soccer's for girls, REAL men want rugby league, Lion Red, and strippers, hell yeah! heheheh... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • We? You a fellow Kiwi? Grutness...wha? 01:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Professional soccer player with reasonable standing. Capitalistroadster 11:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/move per Megan and Capitalist roadster. Kappa 13:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but wikify, the current contents are almost unreadable. — JIP | Talk 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep professional soccer players. If you earn a living and play on a major professional team, you deserve to be in. Meelar (talk) 16:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Now we've sorted out the spelling and notability I now cast my vote! Move to correct spelling and Delete (why leave a misspelling as a redirect?) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:21, 19 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre

Original research. War propaganda used during the Israeli War of Independence by the Arab States in an attempt to shame Arabs into killing Jews. This has been openly admitted by Arab leaders in the past. Even if that were not so, ### no evidence supports the occurence of such an act. As this article is a known forgery whose only purpose is to incite racial hatred, it should be deleted. MSTCrow 05:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The massacre most certainly occurred, and there are plenty of evidence in the article, from Arab, Jewish and international sources. User:MSTCrow brings no sources for his denial of the massacre.--Doron 07:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• See http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18072 for sources. We cannot allow anti-Semitic rants based on original research to be propogated on Wikipedia. MSTCrow 22:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• The Deir Yassin affair is certainly notable. There are these possibilities:-
  • 254 people were killed. (original propaganda in 1948)
  • About 100 to 120 people were killed. (later opinion)
  • Nobody was killed (except in battle). (seems to be implied by the sentence marked ### hereinabove)

Unless we can choose absolutely which is these is true, we better leave the evidence up and let the reader decide.
By "known forgery", do we mean that these quoted reports are not from the papers and publications that they are said to be from? Or what?
I spent some time tidying this article, but I did not alter its meaning or add more matter.

• Please can we properly define the difference between "original research" and other ways of getting hold of information?

Anthony Appleyard 07:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - don't be silly. --Irishpunktom\^talk
• Keep - whatever the truth this is notable--Doc Glasgow 12:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This appears to be well-cited. If you have information that the sources are incorrect, you should provide those sources and write about the controversy on the article. ESkog 14:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is little verifiable evidence that this really occured outside of Arab Propaganda. Deir Yassin is similar to the Jenin Massacre where 3000 make that 1500, would you beleive 600?, perhaps 50 were killed. Klonimus 14:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The event occured and the article is accurate.--Cynical 14:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Some people don't believe in the occurance of the incident . That doesn't mean that the article is of no significance .It is definitely worth a mention . However ,the article should be edited to match the beliefs of all in a nuetral manner. --IncMan 16:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important event, article well cited. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if it were a hoax (I don't know one way or another) this would not preclude an encyclopedic article. We do have Zinoviev Letter, for instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • We also have Protocols of the Elders of Zion Klonimus 03:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed we do. But I thought you were in favor of deleting this article? Why are you doing so while simultaneously advancing excellent reasons to keep it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Tony said. When you disagree with the accuracy of an article, you don't demand its deletion, you start an accuracy dispute. ---Isaac R 19:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This also matches the criteria for page deletion based on the "No original research" policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. One cannot have an accuracy dispute over something that never occurred. MSTCrow 22:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can understand the No Original Research rule if you think it applies here. Elsewhere you have suggested that the article should be deleted because someone called David Meir-Levi says it never happened. Mr Meir-Levi's published view should probably be reported within the article, though it would be better if you could find a source more credible than the rightwing extremist Frontpagemag.com. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article contains references to other sources, so it is not original research (in fact, I wished more articles had so many references). Article has been around for years, has been extensively discussed on its talk page, and even went through peer review. Take your problems to the talk page. -- Jitse Niesen 03:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and cleanup. Notable event. Megan1967 06:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am quite shocked that some people are trying to make out that the Deir Yassin massacre never happened. PatGallacher 10:55, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • A reply was sent to me, which I have posted on the talk page. PatGallacher 09:42, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• Keep - and cleanup, the style of the article is horrible. --Elian 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously a notable historical event - otherwise nobody would be loudly demanding deletion claiming fraud, would they? --FCYTravis 23:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously there are many who believe the article to be useful. As long as there is controversy there is no reason to delete. That would stifle discussion and ignore one point of view.
• Keep notable historical event. JamesBurns 09:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Its an important event. But the present entry has serious flaws. Quoting from clearly POV sources should be done carefully so that readers of the entry can evaluate the statements in the context of the bias from which they came.--Jsolinsky 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously. The article may have issues, but this was a real and notable event, documented by many sources, even if details remain in dispute.--Goodoldpolonius2 19:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course. Its nomination here is a remarkable example of Nakba denial. - Mustafaa 21:16, 26 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Mac rune

While only a guideline, this definitely fails WP:FICT. It should probably be merged (if there's anything new to add) into RuneScape runes. --Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP is not GameFAQs (this is basically a walkthru/guide thing); actually, possibly copyvio'd from there or similar but it would take ages to manually open and search each FAQ for this matching line. Master Thief Garrett 06:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Play the game rather than talking about the game. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. (Now, I must go play Throne of Bhaal again.) Geogre 11:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as incorrect. Things may have changed recently, but back when I played, the most common name for "blood rune" was "blood rune". --Carnildo 23:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete', Along with nominate the pruning of the Runescape Subsection (Under MMORPG) to only a page about the game itself. WP will never get to the point of being a sufficient guide to RuneScape, and we either need to get rid of part of this scourge or let it grow. We could just leave it at the RuneScape series of Articles, and delete any more additions to the section.

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Jaffa Online Radio

Non-notable pop music group. Commercial advertizing.
The pages found by searching for this topic in Altavista are nearly all either Wikipedia echoes or in the Latvian language.

• If Jaffa Online Radio is deleted, there will also be need to delete Jaffa Online Magazine. And also to delete these three link lines in Jaffa:-

Jaffa is a short form of JaffaRiga Projecs - a DJ organisation in Latvia.

Jaffa Online Radio is a new internet radio in the Baltic States.

Jaffa Online Magazine is the Jaffa Online Radio's magazine.

Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Edit The article advertises the Jaffa radio . Wikipedia is definitely not meant for that .--IncMan 16:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Radiant_* 11:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Leanne 05:06, 25 May 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 dekeepify... er, delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Deduplify

Doesn't look like a real word in use, according to Google. –Jonnabuz (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. Sjakkalle 07:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Deduncify by deleting, neologism and unnecessary. Geogre 11:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, dicdef. Thue | talk 11:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as I mentioned in the Talk page --TheParanoidOne 15:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all reasons listed above. --Jemiller226 19:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sn0wflake 00:40, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Brian J. Mullally

Two-sentence entry doesn't establish notability. -- Grev -- Talk 07:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, reputed son of a diplomat - not inherently notable on his own. Megan1967 07:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: No possibility of a redirect, since he wants to talk about himself rather than tell us who his parents were. Not, of course, that there aren't tens of thousands of diplomats at any given moment and therefore tens of thousands of former diplomats, so even that would have been dubious. Just vanity. Geogre 11:19, 19 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

John Felderhof

Non-notable vanity; same anonymous user created Brian J. Mullally above. -- Grev -- Talk 07:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Stoner joke. "He makes acid in his toilet (giggle giggle)." Geogre 11:21, 19 May 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 (no consensus) and move to better title. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Famous pnemonia deaths

WP is not a repository of lists, and this list will never be comprehensive nor complete, and "famous" is automatically in danger of being POV. Master Thief Garrett 07:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV - criteria for inclusion not defined, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 07:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge some material to Pneumonia. There are certainly people who notably died of pneumonia, like William Henry Harrison (contracted it during his inauguration) and Jim Henson (died unexpectedly amid acquistion talks with Disney), but the list as proposed won't work. Gazpacho 08:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: All the List of articles are aggravating, but this one doesn't even manage to spell the name of the disease right. (Misspell anywhere but the title.) Geogre 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Defining 'famous' is inherently POV, and the name isn't even spelled properly Cynical 14:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed that, when I added the Log tag I just typed it in by hand and was mystified when it resulted in a red-link... Master Thief Garrett^Talk
• Comment. I share MTG's dislike of list articles, but he's not correct when he claims "WP is not a repository of lists." On the contrary, we have thousands of lists, and they have fanatical supporters. You may succeed in deleting this list, since only its creator seems to care about it. But picking out a few unpopular lists to VfD makes almost no impact on overall "list pollution" and is just not a productive use of anybody's time. ---Isaac R 19:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and cleanup. RickK 21:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep excellent, useful list. Kappa 23:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. -Sean Curtin 01:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless list. Even if it were spelled correctly, the title implies it to be a list of people famous for dying of pneumonia (like William Henry Harrison), rather than a list of famous people who happened to die of pneumonia. Either way, it's not the kind of list thats actually useful for something. --Angr/_comhrá 07:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I fail to see the point. Radiant_* 11:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another POV useless list. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 25 May 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 and Move to List of people who died in helicopter accidents.

This is to be consistent with similar lists such as List of people who died in road accidents. Deathphoenix 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Famous helicopter accidents

WP is not a repository of lists, and this list will never be comprehensive nor complete, and "famous" is automatically in danger of being POV. Master Thief Garrett 07:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for now, because the content at the moment is only a list of four people who have died in helicopter accidents. However, I think a List of helicopter disasters is a valid topic, in the same vein as List of rail disasters, and when we do get an article on that this title should be a redirect. Sjakkalle 07:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to List of celebrities killed in helicopter accidents per Tony Sidaway. The current title is somewhat misleading, since I would expect a list of articles about helicopter disasters and not a list about people who died in them. Sjakkalle 06:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV - criteria for inclusion not defined, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 07:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently POV, no include/exclude criterion. Geogre 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but article shows potential of list of helicopter disasters as per Sjakkalle. Capitalistroadster 12:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a perfectly good stub, and we've already got some rather useful lists on other aviation accidents. I can't see the point of deleting--to do so would only cause us to lose information that would end up being entered at a later date. No objection to moving it to List of helicopter disasters or (preferably) List of celebrities killed in helicopter accidents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep, seems like a worthwhile list. RickK 21:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the below, and with famous motorcycle accidents, famous boat accidents and similar. Radiant_* 11:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep could be expanded. There are many notable helicopter deaths... Grue 19:57, 20 May 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 with List of people who died in road accidents. Deathphoenix 15:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Famous automobile accidents

WP is not a repository of lists, and this list will never be comprehensive nor complete, and "famous" is automatically in danger of being POV. Master Thief Garrett 07:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious redirect to List of people who died in road accidents--nixie 07:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of people who died in road accidents. There are some new names on this list. Sjakkalle 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV - criteria for inclusion not defined, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 07:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you want to see the "List of..." deleted too in that case? Master Thief Garrett 08:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say that "Has an article in Wikipedia" is an OK criterion for inclusion. Sjakkalle 09:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a list under the name of something else. How could one discuss "famous automobile accidents?" Well, you'd establish that they're famous, that they're accidents, and that they involve cars, and that they might or might not result in death (so Dylan's chopper crash is out). After that, you'd have...a list. (sigh) Unsearchable, inherently POV. Geogre 11:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of people who died in road accidents. Interesting encyclopedic topic. Capitalistroadster 11:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Sjakkalle. RickK 21:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the previous topic, and with famous motorcycle accidents, famous boat accidents and similar. Radiant_* 11:06, May 20, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Maghook

"Maghook": 1000 G. "Lightsaber": 624,000 G. Realising it's non-notable fancruft? Priceless. There are some things writing five books can't buy, for everything else, there's Vfd. Master Thief Garrett 07:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, too granular, no cultural impact separate from the books. Average Earthman 08:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fancruft, trivia, anti-contextual. Geogre 11:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge somewhere per WP:FICT or similar thinking. Kappa 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A minute detail in a series of barely notable books. Scimitar
• Delete, unexpandable cruft. --FOo 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 23:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancy word for a grappeling hook, or something. Sabine's Sunbird 00:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain One day, those books could be made into a movie and then it's notable. --Bobbagum 20:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read crystal ball. And probably 75% of the articles we Vfd could also become something noteworthy, "one day". But Wikipedia is supposed to be topical, to be of use and interest NOW, not ten years down the track. When and if this item becomes more noteworthy we'll be happy to see it re-added. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 01:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • One day, a movie could be made of my biography. By your argument, the shed in my back garden is notable because it could feature in that movie that one day could be made. Uncle G 18:01, 2005 May 23 (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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Manuchehr Shahrokhi

167 Googles, non-notable. Master Thief Garrett 07:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I added to the article this person's book Reverse Licensing: International Technology Transfer to the United States (ISBN 0275922588) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - his book gets 27 hits - coincidentally the same number as my own published thesis - both are non-notable - abstain on whether the rest of his achievements justify inclusion (self-deprecatingly) --Doc Glasgow 12:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Having read the article, my humble query is: will people want to know about him, and will they look in Wiki to find out ? If so, why delete a published academic ? --Simon Cursitor 14:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Author of 80 articles? Must be reasonably "notable". Frjwoolley 23:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published author (WP:BIO). Radiant_* 11:06, May 20, 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.

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 withdrawn after notability established and unanimous Keep verdict by voters. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Jan Stussy

314 Googles, nn. Master Thief Garrett 07:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite and keep. The article credits Stussy had an "Oscar winning documentary". It was "Best short documentary", 1977 with Gravity is my enemy. That I think should raise Mr. Stussy up and beyond the "average college professor" bar for notability. Also, 100*pi google hits is pretty good for a person. "Rewrite" because the article doesn't quite read like an encyclopedia entry right now. Sjakkalle 08:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- I moved this article from Gravity Is My Enemy to here after a quick Google search proved the claims within. Needs a rewrite however. - Longhair | Talk 08:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Oscar winner. Needs rewrite to conform to wikipedia style. Thue | talk 11:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The article is more a personal recollection although the Oscar makes him notable. Capitalistroadster 12:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have now cleaned this up. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 04:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Very nice. Rewrite is no longer needed, thanks. Sjakkalle 10:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• notability now established, my point of contention is gone, so I'm closing it. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Carl W. Salser

615 Googles, nn. Master Thief Garrett 08:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The last two paragraphs in the article establish notability. Sjakkalle 08:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- and cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 09:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Held senior US Government position. Capitalistroadster 12:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--the combination of the books and the Nat. Council on Education & Research put him over. Meelar (talk) 15:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Holding a post that requires Senate confirmation? That's notable. -- Jonel 06:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Linuxbeak | Desk 15:32, May 21, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Friederich Golz

37 Googles says he's non-notable, unless of course there's some special scientist criteria guideline I don't know of. Master Thief Garrett 08:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable and verifiable, seems to have done pioneering work in surgery. Martg76 08:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — first doctor to perform animal experiments in lobotomy makes him notable. But there isn't a lot of other information available, so perhaps he should just be summarized on the lobotomy page? — RJH 16:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Or if not, merge and redirect to Psychosurgery (which is where Lobotomy points). Google counting is probably not much use for this kind of thing. You need to know the significance of what you're reading about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 06:48, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

MuseumTour

Advertising. Article created by ad-spamming IP 66.213.197.74, probably permablocked User:MuseumTour trying to circumvent his block. Phils 08:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• hmmm, suspicious, yesss, it must be Deleted, yesss... Master Thief Garrett 08:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert, does not show signs of sufficient influence, significance, originality, etc. etc. required for a business to warrant an article. Average Earthman 08:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this advertisement.Naturenet 09:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC); yes, even after revision. Naturenet 17:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --TimPope 09:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot find any credible third party references to verify that this business is noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Nausea-inducing advertising on the verge of spam. Geogre 11:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well all I can say is that companies are starting to use Wikipedia to promote their brands . --IncMan 18:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've removed the advertising copy from the article. Unfortunately, there isn't an article anymore. --Carnildo 23:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Good Job . The topic is just worth a sentence . --IncMan 14:52, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:44, 20 May 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. However, a few other articles in this series have been listed for deletion and ended with merge consensus. Therefore, for consistency, I will (try to) merge this one to a new article: Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Season 1. Sjakkalle 08:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The Ed-Touchables

MERGE I've looked at a few other animated series (ex1, ex2, ex3), none of which have every single episode wikified. Don't see it necessary to have a seperate article for each episode. At the most, list descriptions of episodes on parent page Ed, Edd n Eddy, as in example 1. Then delete/merge all the rest of the very small episode articles listed on parent. Who 08:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain: I defer to anybody participating in the Ed, Edd n Eddy articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, and all of its decendants. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, the following animated series have have every single episode wikified: The Simpsons, South Park. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Response In those cases each episode is not one or two lines long in description, articles with little to no content are usually deleted upon creation, hence I proposed a merge.<> Who 19:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: um, you're not really meant to use Vfd for merging but for (obviously) deletion. Just rememeber to be bold and go right ahead! Alternately (as above), read up on what others have done. No vote. Master Thief Garrett 10:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Response Vfd is used for all purposes (cleanup, merge, del,wiki'd) as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.<> Who 19:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Read that page more carefully, and familiarize yourself with the various tools in the toolbox. There is more than one tool to use. Uncle G 18:13, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
      • I don't feel this is the right place for this topic, however. The second sentence of VFD states it is to be used for these options to reach a consenus. None of the other tools allows for consenus, they would just be stuck in a category. Also, since there are so many articles this vfd is covering, it's more sensible to propose it on the first one and not all of them, as they would all be deleted if the consensus was to merge or del. <> Who 18:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TV episodes. There's a strong precedent for keeping them for even slightly-notable series. I've never seen this show (and from what I can tell, it seems pretty lame) but if someone out there is big enough of a fan that they can write knowledgeably about each episode, I see no reason to stop them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Response I agree, I proposed a merge, as each episode article is little to no content. <> Who 19:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 13:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is not really up to wikipedia standards; it's largely incoherent and if submitted as essay work would flunk at any higher level than Grade 7. Keep if someone wants to cleanup, delete if not. Scimitar
• keep TV episodes except in extreme cases (e.g. a show is cancelled after one episode--then the ep. title can redir to the show). Keep and tag for cleanup. Meelar (talk) 15:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though generally if it doesn't get too long I prefer to see longer omnibus episode guide articles like Red Vs. Blue episode guide: Season 2. -- Lochaber 17:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Response I think that is a perfect example of how smaller episode listings should appear, as is what I am proposing. <> Who 19:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• merge into season page. Wikipedia is not paper, but information like this is better presented on one page. Sabine's Sunbird 00:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Sabine's Sunbird. AlistairMcMillan 13:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW, virtually all of this series' episode articles have been created by a (probably very young) "problem editor": User:Bobber1 formerly known as User:Bobber2. Some others have made some attempts to cleanup the articles, but apparently with little success. Whatever happens to this article should most likely happen to all of the episode articles. Soundguy99 12:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I second S2's suggestion, although I suggest one page per season and then one for the holiday specials.—Quickbreak 01:55, 26 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Jotun Hein

Seems rather unnotable from content of article, his website lists a lot of papers he has contributed to... does this make him worthy of includsion? --TimPope 09:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Not notable other than contributing to several academic articles. --TimPope 11:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: name gets 5180 Googles, A word of warning, however, be careful not to word your nomination as if you are unsure or are asking for opinions, in the past some people have gotten in trouble for doing this over a prolonged period of time. You are supposed to clearly show that your own mind is made up on the matter. Other than that, a Keep is probably in order, but I know nothing about this subject so will abstain for now (and probably for the entire course of the Vfd as well). Master Thief Garrett 10:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: you might get into trouble if you do it very very often over a prolonged period of time, enough that people suspect you of not having good faith and trying to prove a WP:POINT. Just because one person got in trouble in extreme circumstances doesn't mean it should become a permanent taboo. Kappa 12:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but someone is bound to jump on it in a controversial Vfd like a school--"nominator doesn't even make up his own mind, WP:POINT!"--if you lose focus at the wrong moment. Master Thief Garrett 13:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nobody has voted yet so here is one vote... I don't know for sure whether or not Jotun Hein is notable enough, but the article does not establish notability. However, I'll keep an eye on this one and reconsider if the article is expanded. Sjakkalle 14:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, keep the expanded rewrite because he has co-authored a textbook, but I want to point out that publishing things and doing lots of research isn't really something which makes a professor more notable than the "average" college professor. All professors have published something. Sjakkalle 07:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll expand it. JuntungWu 15:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Helped write a book which got the following reviews: 'an excellent and timely book that should appeal to a variety of people in genetics and applied mathematics.' -Professor Montgomery Slatkin (Berkeley) 'the authors are outstanding experts in the field, and the book is topical and timely.' -Professor David Balding (Imperial College) 'Hein, Schierup and Wiuf have written the first general book on the coalescent. It is an engaging combination of clear mathematical derivation and real data examples.' -Professor Joe Felsenstein (University of Washington) I'm not an expert (or even a novice) in the subject, but I think he's notable.- Scimitar
• Keep per Scimitar. — RJH 16:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Ocford professor who appears to have done significant research in mathematics. Capitalistroadster 20:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Published professor. Megan1967 06:50, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Herbert W. Armstrong (index)

Bizarre "see also" page. Some material might be merged into Herbert W. Armstrong, but the page should be deleted. —Ashley Y 09:34, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete, inline links are there to be used, indexes are not necessary. --bainer 09:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge what can be salvaged, and then, reluctantly, Delete. I applaud the author's ambition to make what seems to them like a highly useful page, and it's well written and incredibly comprehensive to boot, but I'm afraid it's probably a misundestanding of wikification leading to a lot of unnecessary hard work. I'll say it again, it's an amazing effort. Master Thief Garrett 10:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It looks to me like a narrative form of "What Links Here." Duplicates a function of the software and increases page rank (even if that's not the author's desire). Geogre 11:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete -- we do not want to set a precedent of having indices for every page. Would make special:randompage very boring. Dunc|☺ 12:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• bewildering list better served by section on main article's page, so merge. I agree with MTG that it's a shame, though. Grutness...wha? 14:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article doesn't even try to explain how some of these things are related to Herbert W. Armstrong, this is a really bad precedent as well. RickK 21:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a collection of links that doesnt really expalin the significance with Armstrong - not very useful. Megan1967 06:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete —Ashley Y 08:17, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Chowbok 14:55, May 20, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Scenario RPG Maker

non-notable ad for vague freeware (plugin for RPG Maker perhaps?) Master Thief Garrett 09:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - It's non-existant to boot. --Irishpunktom\^talk
• Delete. Advert. -- Jitse Niesen 03:15, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Amharic language translation and interpretation services

Blatant advertisement --ascorbic 11:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Thue | talk 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. RexNL 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Spam, egg, spam, spam, saussage, spam, bacon, spam and delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. JamesBurns 09:42, 23 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Reflection on Luke 11:27-28

Original research and opinion piece; completely unencyclopedic. Delete. Lupo 11:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, fascinating, but, um, not here.WP:NOR. Master Thief Garrett 11:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Lupo. Thue | talk 11:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Lupo. — JIP | Talk 11:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The point's ok, the argument's a bit tendentious, but no original research. Geogre 13:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• If this weren't an anonymous editor (Special:Contributions/217.113.72.38), I would say Userfy, but since it is I'll have to say Delete. --bainer 13:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 06:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Church-type preaching. Fine in a collection of sermons, but not here. Anthony Appleyard 11:32, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Four Runners

Band vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Awwwwwww. Delete it a lot: Buddycruft. I do wish them well and persistence and success, but they have not achieved notability yet. Geogre 13:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- maybe one day. - Longhair | Talk 19:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Leanne 05:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity: Also user from similar IPs are vandalizing.--Tznkai 14:17, 25 May 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 with Godzilla vs Megaguirus. Sjakkalle 09:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Megaguirus

Movie- or game-cruft, not encyclopedic. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable giant monster, main villain of a major Gozilla movie. Kappa 12:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's a notable giant monster, then OK, but there is too little content in this article. I change my vote to merge with Godzilla. — JIP | Talk 13:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• I suggest a merge with Godzilla vs Megaguirus instead--much cleaner. The movie is clearly encyclopedic (ALL Godzilla movies are encyclopedic), and we shouldn't clutter the main godzilla page. Meelar (talk) 15:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as per Meelar. It can always be split off again if the creature topic grows large enough (pun not intended.) — RJH 16:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Meelar. RJFJR 16:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Godzilla vs Megaguirus. Megan1967 06:53, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Neurokinetic telepathy

Pseudo-Science, orginal research, cannot find references in a peer-reviewed journal, delete --JiFish 13:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• By sheer mind power, we can cause this article to disappear from Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 14:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• By sheer telepathy (well, plus this bent spoon in my hand) I scratch that sector off the hard drive from afar. Master Thief Garrett 14:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be pseudoscience, wildly extrapolating from some bits of neuroscience. Average Earthman 14:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — an original research fantasy cloaked in a veneer of seeming plausibility due to heavy use of scientific/technical terminology. This topic also has a section the telepathy page, which could potentially be quashed if this page is deleted. — RJH 16:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This article made me so angry that I accidentally knocked over a tree with my mind. Original research, Deep Thoughts. Geogre 18:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Its a figment of imagination .--IncMan 20:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, only Google hits for "Neurokinetic telepathy" are wikipedia and its mirrors. RickK 21:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, typical pseudoscientific text with SF "emotional telepathy" thrown in - Skysmith 07:56, 20 May 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 with The Legend of Zelda series. Deathphoenix 17:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Links Theory

(from "zelda" series) Apparently original research (13 google points), non-factual fancruft, maybe vanity Brighterorange 13:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The Multiple Links theory isn't necessarily original research, you'll find various flavours of it plastered all over whatever forum you choose. However this is, as the title says, a "theory", it isn't facts. Even Shigeru Miyamoto says he's not sure about some parts of the timeline. So it must be deleted, as there's no way to make it accurate or reliable or "true". Master Thief Garrett^Talk 14:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Weak Keep, pending Deco's rewrite. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it is true that there is definitely more than one Link, there is no need for such information to appear outside of the Link and Zelda series articles, especially not in this form. Also, some of the 'which Links appeared in which games' accertations made are not definite. Ian Moody 15:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Simply a theory. Delete. Nestea 15:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear verifiable. At best the info should be featured on a more centralized article. ESkog 16:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite. The most reputable of fansites have long sought to reconcile the chronological problems of the Zelda series using some kind of multiple Links theory. What's more, the existence of multiple Links is not only obvious but verbatim confirmed by Miyamoto and others. However, this article is trying to push one particular theory that doesn't hold too much sway, and is also very poorly written. What we need is a good summary of all of the traditional theories and how the official information fits in. I'll do this later if I have time before its demise. Deco 00:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • But how many theories are you going to have to cover? There's been so many... and where exactly Link's adventures in the "not in Hyrule" games come in exactly is always unclear... this article would probably end up being rather long... hmmm... but I'll vote to keep for now, see how well (or badly) this comes out... hmmm... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've thought about this some more and read some of the latest theories and stuff. I think a better move may be to add a section to the The Legend of Zelda series article about the chronology of Zelda in general, mentioning the multiple Links theory. If this section grows large enough, it can be moved to Chronology of the The Legend of Zelda series or something. I changed my vote to Merge/redirect. Deco 19:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable theory. Megan1967 06:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• That's not a theory, that's a fact from the games' timeline (there are also multiple princesses each named Zelda, given that the games are set in different periods of history). Merge/redir to Legend of Zelda for a very brief mention. Radiant_* 11:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into The Legend of Zelda series. Thunderbrand 15:06, May 20, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Tube of glue

This does seem to be a real band, with a website, but it doesn't seem particularily notable. When I search for "tube of glue"+Mattmenn I get only 4 Google hits. Looks like band vanity. Sjakkalle 14:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete seems to be of local interest only, thereby failing WP:MUSIC but I'm not 100% sure where all those performance locations are.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I think people are imagining too much nowadays . --IncMan 20:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally agree with IncMan. -- Krash 19:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Leanne 05:10, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Gtagaming

This is pure advertising. If the site was notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, then the article would surely contain a decent amount of information about the site, how it grew, etc. rather than listing what games make up the GTA series, and the fact that they use paFileDB Cynical 14:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Scimitar
• Delete, advert. It's a great site, but I'm not sure it's quite notable enough. Seems to be copied from their History/About/etc. sort of page (maybe a copyvio? I doubt they care though). Why SanAn has such a big spot I really don't know. Well, I do, it's touted as the greatest GTA ever, but that shouldn't be the focus of a fansite article. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- barely a year old. - Longhair | Talk 19:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 06:57, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Humanifesto

Unknown Canadian band whose self-released CD isn't even for sale yet. [8] Current editor appears to be a member of the band. --Viriditas | Talk 15:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:The band is unknown to the previous user. Wouldn't this be the point of an encyclopedia? to provide information about an unknown topic? Also, the article clearly states that they have released both a live demo, and a track on a compilation cd, and also says that their studio album is ready for release. --Vince Talk 2:19pm, 19 May 2005 (EST)

Unknown as in not notable. Google test turns up nothing noteworthy.--Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Independently made record independently distributed. Just a gigging band. Good for them, but an encyclopedia is neither an advertising medium nor a primary research tool. We require validation and substantiation of notability prior to discussion. (In my day, board tapes were not followed by self-produced records. Self-produced records were demos. These days, CD production is so cheap that bands are handing their demos out as "the first album.") Geogre 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An encyclopedia is not a Public Relations firm. RickK 21:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't understand the hostility. I was merely putting up an entry for a band in my local scene. I figured if anywhere, an open source encyclopedias users wouldn't put such heavy emphasis on being signed to a label. Geroge, I'm not sure when "your time" was, but most of the influential punk bands in the scene self-produce many of their albums. Notable examples are Minor Threat, Bad Religion, SNFU, The Dead Kennedys, The Vandals, among others. I don't see how this page differs from that of Metallica or any other "major" band out there, other than possibly a larger interest in their pages. But if traffic is the criteria for a page here, this isn't much of a resource.Equal

I apologize for myself if I appeared hostile. I agree with you that folks on VfD can be that way. Your impulse to inform was great and not to be discounted. The reason the article fails is simply that, to be encyclopedic content, a topic should be notable and verifiable. When a band is unsigned and unreleased, there is little way for people to independently verify the claims of the article. Since all encyclopedias are secondary sources of information, we shy away from announcements and first-hand accounts wherever possible. Again, I'd like to say that you shouldn't take this hard or take the snippish tone of comments as any reflection on you or your participation. Geogre 15:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not establish notability, wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 06:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Leanne 05:11, 25 May 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 deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Toolshed

Promotion for what seems like a local-interest topic. Example prose from the article is "All you need the appreciate this are fully functioning ears, a clear passageway to your brain and an open mind." --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per DropDead. Also a copyvio and I have marked it as such. ESkog 16:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - then let me know, so I can make an article on the history and practice of keeping tools in a separate structure designed to maximize the space for storing such implements through a system of shelves and hooks. :) -- BD2412 ^talk 03:39, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • In a shed, you mean? ☺ Uncle G 18:21, 2005 May 23 (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.

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 Speedy Deleted by DJ Clayworth (content was: '{{vfd}}== About ==This is a 'directory page'...Feel free to post your blog links in the links section.See this article: weblog== Blogs/Lin...'). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Bloglist

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Thue | talk 15:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — the Category:Weblog sites can be used for this purpose. — RJH 15:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not Google Directory. Even barring that, opens can of worms and a flood of terribly non-notable sites would be repeatedly added. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

HoboStink

Not notable, having not even released their first album. Thue | talk 15:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• No allmusic, no wide tours that I can see from their site, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete, but best of luck ("Will rock for food"--I chuckled). Meelar (talk) 15:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, bandvan, crystal ball. Yep, best of luck, but delete until they've got a couple of albums or something. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Too close to "Hoobastank" for me to believe their future is terribly bright, but good luck to them all the same. Bandvanity. Geogre 18:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:03, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Pournelle Chart

Insufficient distinction to merit it's own article. All good data from this article should be put in the Political Spectrum entry and this entry closed. Well, the first has already been done at Political Spectrum Pournelle Chart My vote is MERGE into Political Spectrum. (I hope merge is the right word, it's a rather unidirectional merger.) Harvestdancer 15:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Redirect as that is the term I wanted. Harvestdancer 17:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Make that a Weak Redirect since I found out that Nolan Chart has it's own page. Harvestdancer 06:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Political Spectrum as the information has already been included there. Not really a candidate for deletion, as I'm sure people with more experience than I will be more than willing to explain... ESkog 16:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just a minor variation of the Nolan chart. Pournelle is big name in the SF and computer hobbyist worlds, but he's not a major politicial theorist, and his minor contributions don't rate their own articles.----Isaac R 19:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor variant of the Nolan Chart? The only thing it has in common is that it's 2-d. That's all. Harvestdancer 05:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Isaac R, excellent analysis. Quale 21:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Political_spectrum#Pournelle_Chart. --Carnildo 23:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect: Individual models typically don't get their own article - Juan Ponderas
• Keep and give it a chance to expand. The Political spectrum article is getting long. There's no room for the sections to grow if they can't branch out to there own pages.--Heathcliff 03:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to that as long as it's a consistant policy decision and not an exception made for this chart. Juan Ponderas
  • It doesn't need to expand. If Jerry Pournelle's version of the Nolan chart were notable, the article would be fine as it is. But it's not, for the reasons I've stated above. ----Isaac R 04:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I dispute that reasoning. The Pournelle chart is not at all a "minor variation of the Nolan Chart". One axis is a completely original concept; the only similarity is the axis on government authority, which the Nolan Chart splits in two rather than one. That Pournelle is not known for being a political theorist does not affect the merit of the model. That I think his model is absolutely ridiculous is another matter besides. Juan Ponderas
    • I agree with Juan. This is NOT a "Nolan variant." The only similarity it has to the Nolan Chart is that it is two-dimensional. Any two axes would be two dimensional. It takes more than that to be a Nolan Variant, say by pairing some sort of Civil Liberty axis with some sort of Economics Axis, like Political Compass or Eysenck. This is it's own chart. I just don't yet feel that each individual chart deserves it's own page yet so this should be a Merge and Redirect into Political Spectrum. Really, who after reading the entry would mistake this for a Nolan variant? I mean, after reading it, not just looking at it.Harvestdancer 05:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen it referred to before on the Net. Besides, the inventor is already famous for other reasons. Wiwaxia 06:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per Carnildo. Radiant_* 11:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 66.94.94.154 22:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: this is a distinct concept, linked to from more than just Political Spectrum: it should have its own article for the sake of normalisation. The extended explanation should be merged from Political Spectrum to avoid duplication and contradiction. --Phil | Talk 10:05, May 25, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yehudei sheqolenique

This article asserts that there is a group of Jews positioned somewhere between the Ashkenazim and the Sepharadim, and that its name is the etymology of the name Skolnick. Every Google link on the subject is a Wikipedia mirror. Delete, fantasy. JFW | T@lk 15:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no town anywhere as far as I can ascertain called "Sheqolenique", nor is there any record that this fantabulous ethnicity ever existed. It is difficult to imagine that nothing has been written about these people in the past 1800 years...and, in fact, no evidence they existed prior to the time of their allegèd departure either. Not only that, but the article makes some pretty wild claims about the supposed purity of this group's traditions...certainly there would be extant commentary (and I have no doubt, a great deal thereof) if such a group actually existed. Tomer ^TALK 16:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although it must be fun to invent new Jewish ethnicities, Yehudei Rugalach, anyone? (mmmm.... rugalach) --Goodoldpolonius2 16:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh. JFW | T@lk
• Given that it is anonymous and lacks cited sources, I am very suspicious. If someone can give decent sources for this, now that the POV material has been removed it would be a perfectly OK article, but without sources, I agree, it smells like a Nihilartikel. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I forgot to say: Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 02:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable; looks like someone had some fun at Wikipedia's expense. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I just got off the phone with Dr. Abraham Lavender, who is quite familiar with the various Jewish groups of origin, and he questions the validity of this term, (which I would take to mean there's probably no such thing). -- BD2412 ^talk 17:54, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Thanks. This strengthens the case enormously. JFW | T@lk
• Delete. HKT 18:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 07:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what a bubba-meise. IZAK 07:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Nice piece of fiction. Delete. Etz Haim 10:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Right, I forgot about this "article." As I told IZAK last week, it's a hoax. Delete. El_C 13:30, 24 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

John c. shaw

Not notable. Thue | talk 16:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Depressing confirmation of Geogre's Law (miniscule middle initial and last name). I'm sure we wish him great fame as a scoliatic dancer or whatever he chooses to do with his life, but he is not yet notable. Geogre 18:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: it was a joke anyway, I know that person who put it up, and no one would ever even notice it's absence - Tastystuff1
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:05, 20 May 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.

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 Speedy Deleted by Mirv (content was: '{{vfd}}Gary McGhee was born on February the 6th 1989. Of average height and build, his interests include art, music, films and literature. He is the...'). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Gary McGhee

Not notable. Thue | talk 16:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• To say the least. Speedy Delete. No content, patent nonsense, vanity. --InShaneee 16:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to 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 Speedy Deleted by Mirv (content was: '{{vfd}}Noun, female, United states resident, born in Atlanta, GA, and currently resides in Bellevue, WA. He is a man's man, and all the boys flock t...'). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Jordan bergeson

Not notable. Thue | talk 16:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• This adolescent nonsense is the sort of thing we can safely speedy delete. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Crystal Transportation

Ad for non-notable company, propose delete RJFJR 16:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

1. Delete. Just an ad. Frjwoolley 23:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:06, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Babya E-Type/Temp

Located under /Temp but not worked on by the creator or anyone else in a major way for a few months. Is about a 'versatile Windows text editor' with 58 results in Google [9]. Its not going to be worked on it seems, and even if it was, its not important enough to keep. Delete. Hedley 16:45, 19 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wolfing Food

Article is about the practice of eating quickly. Dicdef of a non-notable phrase whose meaning is obvious. I can't think of anywhere for this to redirect to. User's other contributions were vandalism exhorting people to drink less soda, but this was at least an attempt at an encyclopedia article, so I brought it here. Meelar (talk) 16:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• This meaning is covered in wiktionary:Wolf. Soft redirect there. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to redirect to Wiktionary. ESkog 16:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. title is incorrectly capitalised anyway. Kiand 18:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I hate it when people insult wolves this way. Geogre 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet another useless food/addiction related article created by this IP (who is also a vandal). Please, someone block it! - Jersyko 22:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated by others Xcali 20:06, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-functional Eating

The phrase gets five google hits. NN neologism, not used in this sense. In short, this article does not describe an actual phenomenon that is known by this name. Meelar (talk) 16:50, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No WP article links to it. Wasted Time R 16:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Surely this phenomenon has a name in scientific litterature, since it is obviously real. Reluctant delete as original research and neologism. Thue | talk 21:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete author has a personal agenda which s/he is airing on the WP. Kiand 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thue | talk 20:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Railways Act 2005

This article contains no information (unsigned by User:Muj0)

• speedy as there is no context. Brighterorange 18:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied - no content or context. Thue | talk 20:47, 19 May 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 Move to Psychoanalytic feminism. Deathphoenix 17:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Psychoanalytical feminism

I don't believe there is any such thing. What this page says defines a number of different kinds of feminism, and is not distinctly psychoanalytical. This Googles 215, but these are predominantly either Wikipedia-related or references to psychoanalytical feminism in academic context which don't identify it as a distinct perspective i.e. they just identify academic speech which is both psychoanalytical and feminist.XmarkX 17:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• The article that was proposed for deletion by Mgekelly was a substub - I have just expanded it a little so we know what we are talking about. Psychoanalytical feminism is one of the main ideas in feminism, it is often quoted next to marxist feminism, radical feminism, liberal feminism etc., so abolutely keep. --Fenice 18:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I didn't check history, and the original nomination might have been fine, but there certainly is Feminism based on Psychoanalysis (although, frankly, Lacan is a much more common source than Freud), as the entire ecrit feminine thing was based on psychoanalysis, and that has been (gulp) influential (despite my railing at it). However, it is very, very easy to go very, very wrong in an article like this. NPOV and comprehensiveness are vital. Any stub will be a misrepresentation. Geogre 19:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points George - I was reading it as 'Freudian feminism' which seemed a bit weird, but your mention of Lacan makes me think of Kristeva and Irigaray. Still, I don't think that there's a specific form of feminism they represent - move to Psychoanalysis and Feminism perhaps?XmarkX 19:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Could also be a rather large section in Feminism and Feminist theory and Feminist criticism, with this lemma becoming a redirect. I think the psychoanalytically-derived stuff is fading from the spotlight these days, with more Marxist inspired criticisms ascendant (I hope so, anyway, as I was so sick of the transhistorical subject posited by psycho crit), but a lot of the "body" criticism is, at root, psychoanalytic in inspiration. May change my vote, esp. if there are sections already present in Feminism that cover the discussion. Geogre 01:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this smells too much of "I've never heard of it, let's delete it!" -- AlexR 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Google only gets eight hits for the term, so there are lots of people in the world who never heard of the term, either. Don't attack nominations, deal with them with wikiquette. Delete. RickK 21:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Rick, there are many more than eight hits (see here). Why did you link to the fifth page of results, and not the first? --bainer 01:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Interesting. When I linked to that, there were only 8 hits, now there are 50. I linked to the last page in order to show the correct count of unique hits. People are always trying to give us a count of Google hits which includes the counts for every occurrence of the term in every page, the unique count shows us the number of pages which include the term. RickK 20:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Do you have a source for this assertion? Kappa 22:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Uh, all you have to do is count the pages. When you look at the link I included above, it currently says 229 hits, but when you go to the last page, it says, "51 - 53 of about 227". This means 53 pages are shown, all of the other hits are multiple hits on the same page. RickK 21:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • OK, I can't find anything specific on any of the Google help pages which addresses this, so I've placed the question on news:google.public.support.general. I'll report on the response. RickK 21:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
              • Still waiting for a response. RickK 23:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
                • That still doesn't address the fact that there are yet more hits under "psychoanalytic feminism" and probably still more for feminism lacan and feminism freud. -Seth Mahoney 00:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and move to "psychoanalytic feminism" (more common term). It is definitely a distinct perspective on feminism. Key American contributors include Nancy Chodorow, Dorothy Dinnerstein and Teresa Brennan. Keep keep keep. FreplySpang (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep expand and move as suggested by Freply Spang. Topic with definite potential for encyclopedic article. Capitalistroadster 21:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per FreplySpang. Google gets about 215 hits for this term, and about 730 for "psychoanalytic feminism." --bainer 01:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• OMG keep! Well, actually, redirect to Psychoanalytic feminism. Feminism rooted in psychoanalysis has been pretty big for something like thirty years now. And as far as hits go, yeah, there are 215 (some of them Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors) for "Psychananalytical feminism" and another 734 for "Psychanalytic feminism". -Seth Mahoney 03:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Psychoanalytic feminism, and expand. Valid encyclopaedia topic. Megan1967 07:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Seth is correct. This should be moved to Psychoanalytic feminism and kept. Leanne 11:25, 24 May 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 (no consensus) and cleanup. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Stoner music

Music that people like to listen to while stoned. Unverifiable, totally subjective. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• keep - I'd vote to delete if this were a list of "stoner music", but it appears to be a (mediocre) article about a legitimate phenomenon. Why is this subjective? Brighterorange 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Massive rewrite and clean, I suppose. The way it's written, it's purely amateur and POV, but there is a term out there in wide use, although what it refers to changes with every speaker. (I always thought stoners liked music that was not drug-like at all; tends to be the sober people who listen to the lysurgic music, while the stoned get mellow and listen to the board tape of "Dark Star" from the Ontario show, because it's, like, way different from the, like, Detroit show.) Geogre 19:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with stoner metal? Or is there a difference? Smerdis of Tlön 20:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stoner. Calling it a genre is a weak case when the definition states: The genres of music this can include, can vary quite widely, depending on the listener's drug of choice and mood. If all that this variety of kinds of music have in common is that they appeal to stoners, just note it in the Stoners article. --Tabor 21:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I know people who like to listen to Bach when stoned. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wahoofive, unverifiable and subjective. Quale 21:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Brighterorange. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:40, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, original research, orphan. --Angr/_comhrá 07:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 07:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir to Stoner. Radiant_* 11:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely not the same as stoner metal. Neologism, or another music "genre" that isn't really a "genre" since it's definition is totally dependent on the individual. Soundguy99 12:27, 24 May 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Cay Qel-Droma

• Delete Fancruft Stancel 17:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 08:34, 22 May 2005 (Japan)
• Keep 17:49, 26 May 2005 (USA)
• Merge to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters, where the more notable Ulic Qel-Droma is. Just FYI, gets about 1,350 Google hits, was significant in the history of the Star Wars universe, and was a major character in the Tales of the Jedi series of comic books. Also, if the List of minor Jedi gets full, we can divide it by time period.-LtNOWIS 00:45, 26 May 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 or merge as per Wikipedia:Pokeprosal. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Nincada

• Delete, Pokécruft ;-) Stancel 17:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pokemon, also has 5,040 Google hits. Pokemon might not be your cup of tea, but we have far more obscure stuff here on WP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the Pokécruft. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 20:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Nincada has the coolest evolution ever, so it's a no-brainer that it should be kept. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as per developing consensus at Wikipedia:Pokeprosal. --Carnildo 23:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep, and allow to evolve. Kappa 23:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Into Shedinja! Shedinja is cool. =D ...sorry Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Pokeproposal deals with articles that are only tables. This article has text. Meelar (talk) 00:14, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • My reading of the proposal says that this is not the case. Also, there is no information in text, or in the entire article, that is relevant to someone who doesn't play Pokemon. --Yoshi348 01:12, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • What information is there in Playstation 3 to someone who doesn't play video games? In Jesus to someone who doesn't care about Christianity? In British Columbia general election, 2005 to someone who doesn't live in British Columbian? Just because there are people who the information wouldn't be relevant to, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 01:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't recommend delete, but merge. In any case, 1) Jesus' teachings have such a profound impact on Western culture that he severly impacts even non-Christians and 2) Nincada has little relevance even within the Pokemon world, unlike the PS3 in the gaming world and British Columbia elections in British Columbia. Maybe you're obssessed with his evolution, but he really isn't much more important than any other Pokemon, and the article really can't expand past stub format without either being trivia or something that belongs on GameFAQs rather than Wikipedia. --Yoshi348 17:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • All Pokemon have relevance in the Pokemon world. And yes, I may be a bit obsessed with Shedinja, but as Shedinja is one of the more unique Pokemon, I'd say that it and its family do have relevance in the Pokemon world. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 19:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• There's unfortunately not an emerged consensus on Wikipedia:Pokeprosal that I can see, but there's no way in heck a listing of every single Pokemon is appropriate per WP:FICT. However, highly oppose deletion as opposed to merge. Problem is there's discussion on what the merged article should be called. Weak Keep until Pokeprosal is finished. --Yoshi348 01:08, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Pokeprosal. It seems to have consensus for merging in there, haven't seen any serious objections lately. Radiant_* 08:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge as per Radiant. --Yoshi348 20:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, poke cruft. Megan1967 07:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. However cool the critter's evolution is, it should get thrown on the list with all the other largely irrelevant pokecruft. -- Scimitar
  • Just because you think something is irrelevant doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 20:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This article is part of a sequence of 387 articles, some only in stub stages, others are full articles. This sequence is part of the Pokémon project, which is an active project.User142 11:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Unfair use of VFD on Pokemon articles. Don't list articles on VFD to make a point (see WP:POINT). Andros 1337 19:41, 25 May 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. (Added one originally-worded sentence into Carolyn Forche; not enough to justify keeping redir) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sean Mattison

Apparent vanity. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Although one or perhaps both his parents seem notable, this guy does have someway to go before he is deserving. Merge the info with his mother, Carolyn Forche and delete. Dunc|☺ 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not inherently notable on his own, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Forche and delete. Given his parents achievements it would be unsurprising if he merited an article one day. This is not that day. -- Scimitar

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. Deathphoenix 17:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Urgh! A Music War

• Delete non-notable, advertisement Stancel 18:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have plenty of albums, why not a videotaped concert performance? At least this one has big-name acts. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep: A quite notable film from 1981. The film had The Police, Wall of Voodoo, Dead Kennedys, XTC, Echo and the Bunnymen, inter al. in prime concerts. It's a pretty important document of the years after punk. This does not mean that the article shouldn't be NPOV and written from an analytical perspective, though. (Most punk films and recordings of the era were extremely low-fi. This is one of the few with professional treatment. It's kind of the "Woodstock (film)" for its era.) Geogre 19:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep VERY famous music film (and record)... XTC, Sting, DEVO, Klaus Nomi, lots of big names. Definitely should be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I got 9,990 Google hits for "urgh a music war" [10]. Film should not be described as a "DVD," though; it used to be shown on USA Network regularly in the 1980s, long before DVDs were introduced. --Metropolitan90 04:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree it needs to be reclassified as a film and album. Very notable. Not quite the Woodstock of the 80s, but up there. 23skidoo 13:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Extremely notable. Kaibabsquirrel 18:10, 23 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Banana Therapy

• Delete or otherwise merge with Banana or Therapy -- Stancel 18:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Banana is not a medical article, and Therapy is a bad article that should be converted into a proper disambiguation page. ("Therapy" has too many meanings to be documented in a single article.) The only real issue is whether "Banana Therapy" actually exists, or is just something somebody heard of somewhere. That's being dealt with by the existing PoV debate, which really deserves more than 34 minutes (the amount of time between the PoV and VfD edits) to work. We shouldn't use VfDs to resolve issues that can be handled by other means -- or are already being handled by other means!!!! ----Isaac R 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I have missed the whole intention of an encyclopedia, but "something somebody heard of somewhere" as an inclusion criterion? That makes it encyclopedic? Personally, I would probably have preferred {{Disputed}} to {{pov}}, as it's not a matter of conflicting sources but no sources given at all. But then again, I have seen {{Disputed}} articles simply sit that way for over a year. VfD at least puts it on a timetable. If it is a critical subject, surely someone will supply something to back it up before the VfD period elapses? --Tabor 21:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I completely agree that we don't want "I heard it somewhere" articles. But we also don't want to be too hasty in rejecting an article as "obviously" bogus. Better to give people a chance to give actual sources. ¶ I also agree that {{Disputed}} would have been more appropriate than {{pov}}. But whoever did the POV described the issue correctly, and that's what's important. ¶ A VfD debate may leave enough time for the article to be beefed up -- or maybe not. That's all beside the point. We have too many of VfD debates, they use up too much of everybody's time, and they cause way too many bad feelings. It's better to give people a chance to thrash out this kind of issue offline. That's why we have policies for less drastic action. Obviously those policies shouldn't allow a bad article to hang around for a year (or more than a month), and you'd be perfectly justified in VfDing such an article. But you have to give it longer than 34 minutes!----Isaac R 22:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and if the information can be verified and sourced, merge with banana.--Heathcliff 21:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Banana. Megan1967 07:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• LOL. But delete anyway. Radiant_* 08:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's short, has no real content, is PoV and (as discussed above) disputed with no sources. --BradBeattie 13:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless source(s) can be provided. -- Krash 20:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's short enough to merge elsewhere but, again, with sources Sonic Mew 20:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, not verified. Quale 09:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources. As I skimmed the Google search results (205 total), there only seemed to be one medical article on it. The other hits were discussions of the "I heard of this. Is there anything to it?" variety, various annecdotal claims, and unrelated hits. Xcali 20:12, 25 May 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. Deathphoenix 17:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

President of Earth

• Delete Stancel 18:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is an informative article that clearly indicates its main use is in speculative fiction. -Acjelen 18:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Decumanus 18:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep -- Stancel, if you can't be bothered to justify your nomination for deletion, you can't really expect to generate a consensus to remove the article. I'm not a big fan of this article (another useless collection of SF trivia), but it's the sort of stuff SF fans love, and you're going to need some solid arguments to get rid of it. "I think it's dumb" is not enough. If nobody has more than that, let's not bother arguing about it. ---Isaac R 18:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Someday Jimbo will occupy this office, and we can say we knew him when... :-) -- BD2412 ^talk 18:48, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept of sci-fi. Martg76 19:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A figment of imagination - President Earth's ruling party faces stiff electoral challenge from Marsian Democratic Party - Thats what I call Sci-Fi Crap . --IncMan 20:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a prominent and almost universal sci-fi role. Mr Bound 19:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it almost universal? There's no president of the earth in Star Wars, Dune, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Close Encounters of the Third Kind or many other SF stories. Did Star Trek even have a President of Earth? I only remember of President of the Federation. There are probably more SF stories without a President of Earth than with one. Perhaps it's prominant. But is it any more prominant than starship captain, robot servant, or evil overlord?--Heathcliff 04:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is a great idea for an article. We should have article on trends as well as things. Gamaliel 19:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rename to President of Earth (fiction). I know I am in the minority here, but I am still bothered by the fact that Wikipedia makes no quick and easy way to distiguish actual persons, groups, and events from invented ones. Typically, the fictional or invented nature of the subject is noted somewhere in the body of the article in no standard way. (If it were up to me, I would give all invented subjects a separate namespace.) As far as statements like "The President of Earth is a theoretical future political office", that appears to me to fall squarely under Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Tabor 21:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Tabor, I believe that under the rules of WP:DAB, an article named President of Earth (fiction) is not allowed if an article named President of Earth either does not exist, or the latter just redirects to the former. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone seeing an article titled President of Earth isn't going to assume that there really is a President of the whole Earth, because every single person reading the encyclopedia will know otherwise. Besides, it's noted in the very first sentence that it's not real and is common in science fiction works. Most people do not learn about things by only reading the article titles. I do agree that the first sentence should probably be reworded in accordance with the crystal ball policy. -Doozer (Talk) 21:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I wasn't really expecting support; just wistfully wishing there were a way to clearly, unambiguously mark articles that are on subjects that are invented or fictional. The current everything2-style free-for-all mélange doesn't really work for me--but I'm just one person. Not every title will be as blatantly obvious as President of Earth, so when (for example) going through search results it would be nice not to have to load each article and scan it for whatever non-standard way its fictional nature is indicated in order to find out if it has something to do with the real world, or is just part of the increasing body of articles about something someone imagined one day. Also, I generally find it is risky to make too many assumptions about what "every single person" knows. People constantly surprise me. --Tabor 22:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well we could try to come up with a {{fictional}} tag or category or something, and have that filtered out from the search. Kappa 23:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I resemble that remark (about everything2). This seems to be a reasonable, unremarkable article, so keep it. AlexTiefling 15:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Instead of yet another tag, simply identifying it as fictional in the intro, as this article does, should be sufficient. Gamaliel 18:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Future History. No potential to become encylopedic Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
  • Hmm we'd better delete every article in Category:Science fiction by that logic. Kappa 23:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • How so?--Heathcliff 03:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
      • For instance, Star Trek is set in the future, so it would seem to be future history by your thinking. Kappa 04:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
        • On the other hand Star Trek is a TV series from the 1960s so it is something from the past. The article in question begins, "The President of Earth is a theoretical future political office," that's theorizing what might happen in the future, that is what I am talking about when I say future history and that is not something that belongs on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). We could of course delete the future history parts of the article, and we'd still have the list of science fiction stories which have a character in them whom is the president of earth. That is not future history, but it isn't really encyclopedic either in my opinion. If the president or earth was an archtype like the mad scientist or the evil genius I might disagree, but I don't feel that it is so I voted to delete.--Heathcliff 04:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree w/ Heathcliff .President Earth does not deserve a seperate article in a encyclopedia - 2 basic reasons : 1 ) President Earth is not a popular fictious character 2 ) Its a imaginative future-history character . It can be mentioned in some list of sci-fi personalities though .--IncMan 10:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable sci-fi concept. Megan1967 07:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept. --the wub (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable uses in fiction.--JiFish 17:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Better known than a ton of cruft that has passed VfD. Besides, it is a very well known concept. Scimitar
• Keep Saswann 20:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It has been shown that it exists the sci-fi world. Ablaze 13:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and create other speculative Prime Minister of Earth and Emperor of Earth ℬastique▼^talk 21:59, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Rationalist Day

Describes holiday apparently invented by the Mukto-Mona, a "rationalist" organization that mainly operates in India and Bangladesh. ("Rationalism" here seems to mean a combination of secularism, human rights activism, and skeptical inquiry.) Google has not a single hit for this holiday except for a few sites connected somehow with Mukto-Mona, and of course all those Wikipedia mirrors.

Mukto-Mona is probably notable enough to rate its own article on Wikipedia. But there's no material for it in the Rationalist Day article -- I'd oppose a simple rename. ---Isaac R 18:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete With just 32 Google Hits (and not all of those are related) this is definitely not widespread enough yet. Compare with 20,100,000 hits for Thanksgiving, 129,000,000 for Christmas, 2,420,000 for Diwali. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Mukto-Mona article if existent or can be legitimately created, otherwise delete. — Phil Welch 21:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Concur --Simon Cursitor 06:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A better comparison would be the 40,000 hits for No Pants Day. --Carnildo 23:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm always most rationalist when I have no pants, because then I can moon Immanuel Kant. (Just kidding. Kant would kick my butt.) (Regionalism without spread at this point and therefore not encyclopedic content at this time.) Geogre 01:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:17, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Lukas Peter

A non-notable individual's vanity page. Full name of the individual gets few hits, apparently non-related. Reccomend deletion. Mr Bound 19:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- student vanity - Longhair | Talk 19:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Conceivably a lot worse than vanity, with the "German pride" themes. At any rate, now we know where those wretched elementary school substubs come from: vanity pages (and I've suspected that many of the "keep" voters are motivated by a similar emotion). Geogre 01:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not vanity, as the subject of this page has had no role in the creation of the page.

---Mojoismog 2:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep I have to say, "Geogre", I have no idea how you extrapolated this article as having "german pride" sentiments. I would actually like you to explain it, because I find your deduction to be rather offensive and ignorant. As I understand it, Wikipedia is a forum inclusive to regional information just as it would be to pop culture. I would ask you to keep this in mind, that simply because you are unaware of the topic, it doesn't necessarily invalidate its contents or make it some kind of student graffiti. Thanks. --Kdevoss 02:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Kdevoss

• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Also, possible hoax - 'Teuto Berga' is not a personal name, but a reference to the battle of the Teutoberg Forest. I'm not going to draw any political inferences. Let's say Mr Peter, if he exists, is not going to distract me when I visit the Pacific Northwest. AlexTiefling 15:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is vanity. On that ground alone it deserves deletion. Maybe when Mr. Peter is one of the most memorable characters in the minds of people besides himself, it will be a worthy article. - Scimitar
  • Trust me, Mr. Peter is a memorable character in the minds of dozens of people besides himself. Please check his article for information on how he made the front page of a newspaper for his activities (under external links).

---Mojoismog 4:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP This article has changed my life. When I first stumbled across this article, I too thought this article on one Lukas Peter was silly and vain. I thought Mr. Peter wrote this article about himself to undermine the integrity of thos hollowed online institution. I felt ASHAMED to be a member of the wikipedia community knowing that pranksters like Mr. Peter could deface our database with his self-serving entry. I was livid. I was so angry that I sought out this Mr. Peter... and I found him. I promise you all I met him, and I gave him a piece of my mind. I berated him for hours on end. However, oddly enough he took my lecture in stride. He just stood there so peacefully, and soon enough cracked a smile. He did not try to refute my arguments nor even defend himself as I attacked and entry on his life. As the day grew, I became tired and gave in. It was then that I was transformed. Lukas taught me so much. He taught me how to be gentle in the face of danger... how to be soft spoken yet strong... and how to live a life where a meaning will ever be questioned. Mr. Peter is undoubtedly the greatest man that I have ever met. He is a man of talent, wisdom, and compassion. Please do not erase this article, if not to encourage others to follow his ways, but for my own sake... this article personally means too much for me to watch it be so violently taken away from me. Thank you all and thank you Mr. Peter. ---Elnemuigato 21:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Note that this is the user's first contribution. Mr Bound 21:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Anyone want to do a sock puppet check here? Mr Bound 21:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --W(t) 21:21, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

KEEP I strongly disagree with the claim that this article is that of a non-notable, as I have personally seen this person on the evening news in Seattle as the lead story, a news broadcast that went out to an excess of 3 million people. This article helps to highlight individuals who are of regional significance, and should not be judged by those who are unfamiliar with the area and its culture. By promoting the existence of articles such as this Wikipedia shall come closer to fulfulling the mission of documenting all knowledge, regardless of whether it will ever effect the lives of all people. ---Mojoismog 2:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mr. Bound's last remark, entered at 21:16, May 20, 2005 was maliciously written with the express intent to harm. I contend that his remark was a personal attack. Thus according to Wikipedia policy, which states most plainly "Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia.", I demand his last remark be disregarded from discussion, and I intend to file a complaint with Wikipedia citing this gross violation of the rules. Thank you --Elnemuigato 21:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the three "keep" voters had five, zero, and three previous edits before contributing to this VFD discussion, I do not think that a little bit of concern is unreasonable. If you'd like, I would be more than glad to defend myself if you'd like to seek a request for comment or arbitration. And remember: please stay cool. Mr Bound 21:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, I have been going to this site for about a year and I've made edits before I actually created an account. I mostly prefer to read articles rather than create my own, and I can assure you that I am a seperate person than the other keep voters. Keep this article and if it bothers you so much then don't read it.

---Mojoismog 2:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Agreed. Attacking users and making accusations of their validity without proof is uncalled for.--Kdevoss 23:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I would appreciate it if my remarks were not misconstrued. Nowhere have I said that anyone in this discussion is a puppet of anyone else. I have not "attacked" validity, only questioned it with what I feel is not an unreasonable suspicion. Indeed, I have no proof, that is precisely why I requested that someone step in and shed some light on the situation. Please, keep what I said in context. Mr Bound 01:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable, vanity. Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, thy name is Lukas Peter. Kelly Martin 21:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity --BaronLarf 22:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I can entirely understand why there is much skepticism to the legitimacy of this article, but this biographical profile is entirely consistent with the spirit and purpose of wikipedia. To the residents of Shoreline, Washington Lukas Peter is an iconic, culturally important figure of our town and region. His adventures are closely watched, and often receive coverage from the local media. The man is one of those individuals who can inspire a sense of community, a feeling of regional pride and self-worth in just about everyone he comes across. In the Seattle area, Lukas Peter has a pseudo-celebrity status that makes him notable, significant and an enormous personality inseparable from Western Washington's cultural identity. --Kathman 03:35, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Lijiang online

Looks like an advert. Non-notable, in any event. Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete If I try to check it with Alexa, it brings up s10000.com which has an Alexa rank 269,480. Also 73 Google hits for "Lijiang online". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Geogre 01:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:19, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Tarana Software

Article about some non-notable game development outlet. Within the day, the vanity page turned into an attack page. Rl 19:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, possibly even hoax. 1 Google Hit for "Tarana Software", most of the games listed either don't Google or are very non-specific (i.e. "Chess"). Might be a tiny freeware/shareware outfit, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable game development outlet with games that are were self-proclaimed to suck. Nestea 01:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not a notable company or major developer. Vandal magnet already. Geogre 01:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Possible flame war in progress -- Delete as POV and contentious (let alone ?notable?) --Simon Cursitor 06:59, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ray Garzia

Vanity of non-notable individual. Reccomend deletion. Mr Bound 20:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete despite the amusement value. -Doozer (Talk) 21:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too much cheese instead of Chess! Svest 21:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Save, person important on local scale Marman22 07:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm important on a local scale, local being defined as my house! I demand my own Wikipedia entry! Delete per WP:VAIN. --Yoshi348 17:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Scimitar
• Comment: The image should probably be marked for deletion as well, unless it can be put into an article where it has use. I doubt it's useful, the image at the article for Afro is already much cooler. Mr Bound 19:14, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice, also the image. -℘yrop (talk) 03:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - notability not established. Samw 01:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this guy already. Extremely non-notable. He's had plenty of time to show his friends that he's "in an encyclopdia". He's had his fun; it is time to delete him.--Heathcliff 15:16, 28 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Marvin Asuncion II

Does not meet notability criteria (see WP:MUSIC). --Tabor 20:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. His name appears in a student newspaper which references his band but pretty much nowhere else. -Doozer (Talk) 22:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:21, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Planet Zot

No indication that the forum is notable. Article seems to just be a way to attack the forum owner. Thue | talk 21:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Had nominated for speedy, I really should have done the VFD process. Delete. Mr Bound 21:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a borderline speedy. The reason I took it through vfd is that the author obviously disagreed that it should be deleted, and the vfd process is a way to legitimise the deletion to him. Thue | talk 21:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete. I would have pulled the trigger, had I seen it listed, only because it's an ad for a site that boasts of copyright violation. We don't advertise (VfD), and we don't promote violation of local laws (CSD). It is borderline otherwise, though. Geogre 01:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Page appears to be attack-dog in text form -- delete, possible defamation --Simon Cursitor 07:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:22, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Real Rap Fans

This appears to be a page to promote a website at http://www.realrapfans.tk/. A link was also edited into the "hip hop music" article. Whether or not the author is part of the staff or just a fan, the website is very juvenile (in its introductory paragraph it calls some random guy who I guess disagrees with the site a "faggot"), amateurish and has only had a couple thousand hits in its history. Even ignoring the fact the article seems to have been created for promotional purposes, the site is nowhere near deserving of an article. -- User:Jamieli

• Delete, non-notable. — Phil Welch 21:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: An attempted ad and poke in the eye. We don't need either one and can't allow the former. Geogre 01:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, forum promo. Megan1967 07:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely non-notable website. --the wub (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with fake rap fans Delete. Radiant_* 11:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. unsigned vote comment by Escobar600ie 07:29, 22 May 2005 El_C 13:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. JamesBurns 09:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like just another website to me. Delete. -R. fiend 18:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. El_C 13:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• yawn, I mean delete. dab (ᛏ) 15:17, 24 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Locke

Probable hoax; I have not been able to verify the subject's existence, much less any of the details. Shares an author with Kietrie Noe and Abby Wager, both similarly unverifiable. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. 99% hoax.Martg76 22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'll stick my neck out and call bullsh*t. The dates are too early for the Enlightenment (John Locke is an Enlightenment figure)- the bio is implausible. (Locke and Demosthenes seem to online pseudonyms used by Peter & Valentine Wiggin). And Aztec? --Doc Glasgow 22:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Definitive bullflop. Internal evidence alone tells us this. 1. Lockes in Vienna? Odd place for this English family in the 16th c. 2. No one knows what he did, but he's important. 3. We only know one book, but all copies of it were burned. 4. His thought is rather like a juvenile today, which is quite the coincidence. Author should be warned, as this kind of junk can get very bad if allowed to fester. Geogre 01:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject is said to have gone to university of Hanford, which does not exist. -- Jitse Niesen 03:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• On basis that the author also did Kietrie Noe and Abby Wager, both of which I opine are hoaxes, delete unless independently verified. Query: can someone like this be locked out for a limited period, in the hope they'll Go Away ? --Simon Cursitor 07:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 07:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious hoax. Aside from Geogre and Doc Glasgow's excellent reasoning, there's also the question of a missionary in Italy in the late 16th century, and the stunning ease of travel between the old and new worlds.AlexTiefling 15:14, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Kietrie Noe

Probable hoax; shares an author with Andrew Locke and Abby Wager, and I have not been able to verify any of it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• The mentioned author is "one of the most renowned Belgian authors of the 19th century", and this author does not have any works in the Belgian national library? Delete. This is just nonsense. --Tabor 00:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hideous jackassery. Geogre 01:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - supposed fictional character without artuicle on supposed creator -- ?hoax? --Simon Cursitor 07:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 07:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more odd than "hideous," but it should go. A2Kafir 17:59, 24 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Abby Wager

Probable hoax; shares an author with Andrew Locke and Kietrie Noe and is similarly unverifiable. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable and possible b.s. --Doc Glasgow 23:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I have blocked the user for serial vandalism, plus the creation of multiple hoaxes. If nothing else betrayed this article, the "Playtone Records" reference would have: that's the fake label used in the movie "That Thing You Do." Geogre 02:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• No in-links, no Google finds -- delete as hoax --Simon Cursitor 07:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 07:27, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

James O'Bryan

Vanity

Delete. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:26, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --bainer 01:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:27, 20 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Christopher holmes

Not noteworthy. Not encyclopedic. Just vanity. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Not just vanity... mega-vanity. Delete. -Doozer (Talk) 22:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --bainer 01:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious vanity. --Yoshi348 01:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:28, 20 May 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheng Kun

Poorly written nonsensical non-article about a non-entity from a minor work of fiction. Attempts to merge and redirect with the poorly written article on the book have been reverted. There are a few other characters from the book that have similar articles. Wikipedia doesn't need more contextless fan drivel; its lousy articles are rampant enough. -R. fiend 22:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. Kappa 23:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect unless expanded. If other users are being unreasonable about this, try dispute resolution. Meelar (talk) 00:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not unreasonable to keep an article separate while it's being worked on. Kappa 02:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. --bainer 01:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yaohua2000 02:13, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems that no attempt was made to merge, the in-progress article was simply redirected. Kappa 02:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. I suspect the original author's first language was not English, and plenty of other articles have started off as pretty badly-written ESL stubs. I'd help clean it up and complete it more than I already have, but I've never read the book (or seen the movie), so I really can't. --Jemiller226 02:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Meelar. Vegaswikian 06:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Has in-links, so is refered to elsewhere; has potetnial for expansion; needs a tidy-up and perhaps some more context: Keep --Simon Cursitor 07:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Megan1967 07:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge imho. Radiant_* 08:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Characters with no cultural impact outside of a series don't need separate articles, particularly when both the articles for the character and the novel are short. This can be merged, and I doubt the merged article will get overlong unless someone starts waffling. Average Earthman 09:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or, better still, delete (what's there to merge, really?). I myself have read the above book, and while it is not a minor work of fiction (it is a major wuxia novel), I won't myself include this silly minor character into Wikipedia's already long list of fan drivel. Even if R Fiend doesn't set this up for deletion, I would have done so. See also the meaningless entry called Ice and Fire Island. There're tons more - keep cool. Mandel 03:10, May 23, 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Albert, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

• Delete this article is full of lies. basically some vanity trying to style himself like Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, please see relevant discussion on Talk:Albert, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Stancel 22:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - patent bullsh*t - and not even very clever --Doc Glasgow 23:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • btw when you kill off Albert,please also execute his brother Douglas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha--Doc Glasgow 23:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect both to their proper articles. With honorifics, one never knows how a user is going to search or an author phrase it in a link text. If those redirects are ever turned back into this BS, we can protect them after reversion. Geogre 02:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. And just delete Douglas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. --Angr/_comhrá 06:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Crap, but will probably be rescued by the fact that it is palpable petit treason, and therefore very much to the republican taste of much of the globe. Has no in-links, and its out-link to Prince Edward is a falsity. But I suspect it will still be here when next I look --Cynical Cursitor 07:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• BTW, Douglas appears (at this daydatetime) an empty shell. Perhaps he's emigrated, anticipating a cull, and planning to return later --Simon Cursitor 07:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both - Looks like yet another dubious would-be-pretenders with the usual proliferation of dubious titles. - Skysmith 08:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which is the primary name of the article on Queen Victoria's husband. PatGallacher 11:04, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
• Delete gibberish but keep as a potentially useful (and in any event, harmless) redirect to the real article. 23skidoo 13:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is palpably false. This article could be replaced with a redirect to the real Prince Albert. There is no such replacement for Douglas, though. Delete him, too. AlexTiefling 14:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete patent nonsense. Redirect perfectly good title to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. -Willmcw 16:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Even if this article were true, this person would not be notable. Wikipedia is not the Almanach de Gotha. Martg76 17:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then recreate as a redirect. Non-standard, but useful. James F. (talk) 20:47, 25 May 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Violin Stadium

Neither Violin Stadium nor the Virginia Beach Admirals actually exists. Frjwoolley 23:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Only Google hits for "Virginia Beach Admirals" are for a fantasy hockey team. RickK 23:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero Google hits for "Violin Stadium". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 07:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I spent some time looking up Violin Stadium, the Virginia Beach Admerals (supposedly the team that plays there), and the Outdoor Basketball Association (supposedly the league to which the Amderals belong), and I couldn't find anything. I also could find no mention of Violin Stadium or the Admerals in the Virginia Beach article. Violin Stadium, the Admerals, the OBA, and several other OBA teams have articles on Wikipedia. Either this is all a very elaborate hoax or there actually is an OBA but it is not notable at all. Will someone try to look into the existence of OBA, Virginia Beach Admerals, etc.?--Sophitus 13:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this can be verified, this article needs severe cleanup but I'd then keep it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have herd that there's such thing as The Outdoor Basketball Association, I have herd that OBA is making their own website...(its under construction). I think its availble to look at this summer and or fall. User:MLSfan0012

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Acmeshorts

Non-notable website, Alexa ranking of 3,796,845, 32 unique Google hits. RickK 23:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VAIN. --bainer 01:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the Google hits give a sample of credible third party references. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Vegaswikian 06:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, site promo. Megan1967 07:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• :'( Mr. Pony 10:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it's me TheBuyer. Are you seriously deleting this entry because you never heard of Acmeshorts and no one else really has either? That's shortsighted and suggests you've misread our intentions. No one credible on the site wants the lowest common denominator to show up, we don't even have any advertisers, pop-ups, mailing lists, promotions, nothing. The only thing site traffic would do for Acme is slow the site down and we hate that. The fact is, Acmeshorts does exist and deserves a definition. Cheers! TheBuyer

• Delete Wikipedia is not an ad agency... there are other channels to go through that don't make you look like the same scum that spams people's inboxes with Viagra. --Yoshi348 17:08, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, TheBuyer again. This is what I'm saying, you're misreading our intentions. Where in this entry do you see any kind of solicitation or promotion, it's all just facts about how/why it exists that's all. You're assuming Acmeshorts wants you there. Why would you assume that?

• We're not deleting it based on us not having heard of it, but instead based on its demonstrated obscurity (very low Alexa ranking, few google hits). Please, don't take it the wrong way--it's simply that this website isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Please keep contributing on more noteworthy topics. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 17:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Will Disney here. We get 10,000 hits a day on AcmeShorts. WikiPedia certainly has space to store a serious entry about a web site dedicated to writing. This Wikipedia entry provides us with no "advertising" value, and we don't care about advertising as AcmeShorts is a money-losing site with no profit method. Why should something obscure not be in an encyclopedia, if the entry is real and contains facts and information that contribute to the greater common knowledge pool? Maybe one of our many daily visitors would like some information about AcmeShorts, and will look it up in Wikipedia. Isn't that the point?
• Disney again: Are you saying you don't allow obscure things in the encyclopedia? Normal encyclopedias have very, very obscure things in them. Things that probably no one ever looks at. Certainly there must be pages in the Wikipedia that people look at less than the AcmeShorts entry. It's not like the Wikipedia has a page space limit. I mean, sure, AcmeShorts is obscure, but it has been visited almost 2 million times now.
• Delete not notable --JiFish 18:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• What does that mean - not notable? We think it's notable? How does it harm Wikipedia if we setup a genuine entry with real information about a real writing site that has existed for several years? Isn't that the idea?

TheBuyer again. Hi! from one of your pages and pages of rules...

If an article is "important" according to the above (of course, this may be controversial, and can be discussed on the article's talk page, using this policy as a guideline), it should not be deleted on the basis of it being:

  1. insufficiently important, famous or relevant, or
  2. currently small or a stub.

What part of this am I failing to understand?

Mr. Pony here. I'm with Megan1967. I think the so-called "Google Test" is inherently flawed. Seriously, though, as far as our insignificance goes, we're all trying to not take that the wrong way, but I think we need a little clarification. Could one of you give us an example of what you think is the least significant site that is just significant enough to merit an inclusion in Wikipedia? Thanks!!

Also, where is the discussion, all I see are user names weighing in with Votes but very little actual discourse. -TheBuyer

• Delete. Two million hits in thirty months just isn't that much. Not encyclopediac. --Carnildo 20:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see how personal attacks will help make your case, Carnildo. --Mr. Pony Friday, four fifty-seven p.m. Eastern
  • Personal attacks? What are you, a fucking moron? You seem to be no more capable of recognizing a personal attack than you are at writing an encyclopedia article! Maybe you should go back to grammar school -- I hear it's a good place to learn such things. Or maybe you never went there in the first place: it would explain a lot about you. I see from your userpage that someone's accused you of taking dumps in the yard. You deny it, of course, but we all know the truth. Grammar school could help you with that little problem, too. And while we're on the subject of you, what sort of a name is "Mr. Pony"? Is it maybe a reference to your lack of stature? Or maybe your size "down there"? Or are you just one of those "cutesey" guys who likes such things? Maybe you should try "Mr. Jackass". Or perhaps "Mr. Mule" would better suit your ancestry. --Carnildo 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, Carnildo, I guess I'd like to thank you for showing me what a real personal attack is all about. I must say, I really am surprised that you were able to discern from my few brief posts that I am indeed of mixed ancestry (my father is a Third Generation Japanese American, and my Mother a European American; her father from Italy, her mother an Irishwoman from Canada). What really surprises me, however, is how gleefully you compare me to a mule. I thought that kind of racism was a thing of the past; although I admit that in my travels throughout the world, I have tended to keep to large cities, where "half-breeds" such as myself are more tolerated. Your other attacks about me not going to grammar school, or about me being short or having a small penis, I can sort of write off as being playful (your way of saying "hello", maybe?) but your exuberant racism is another story. I can only assume that you are alone in your racism, and that your racist ways do not reflect in any way on the Wikipedia community. I hope I am right in thinking this. -- Mr. Pony

• Disney: What is the hangup here about notability? Or being encyclopedic? I have a news flash you: The Encyclopedia Brittanica isn't reader-edited! You guys are something different. I honestly don't understand why you wouldn't want to include information just because you consider the topic to be too obscure. I mean, this is an encyclopedia that publishes in Esperanto! What is the harm in having an entry on AcmeShorts?

• Delete. You're stupid site is too crappy for WIKIPEDIA (AWSOME)! Go pormote you're dump-tent site somewhere else--KiNGWiKiPede 21:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The above is the User's first edit. Those of us who have been here for a while disavow the tone of his vote. RickK 21:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

TheBuyer says: See Flash Fiction Acmeshorts is Flash Fiction and is every bit as "Notable" as the provided reference links at the bottom of the article and is NOT a broken link unlike the FIRST link in that article.

My name is Corvon Gundtsdottir, aka Johnny Jinky and I am an acme shorts contributor! Im begging you to take our site seriously, because we enjoy writing stories and we think we have a shot at becoming succesful like other major web players such as Slate, Yahoo or even amazon.com! (Wouldn't it be embarrassing for your corporation if we became big and you had erased our definition?!) OK so some of our stories may not be Puzinger Prize winners but that doesn't mean they're not worth reading or don't contain literatury merit. Plus, If you let us stay on your site i would be willing to contribute some entries on the Wikipedia. I don't have a particular field of expertise "per se" but I could maybe research some topics for you such as computers or others you assigned. If you are interested please tell me who I should send my resume to, for I would love the opportunity to further discuss whether I could work for your organization. I would love to be part of such a "think tank" as Wikipedia. Even if you don't want me to work there maybe you could at least forward my resume to other similar websites, like the Encyclopedia Britanica. I do not wish to work for sites dealing with sexual content, however. I have to go meet some friends now, but thanks for your time. I will check for your response tomorrow around 3:30pm.

• Delete. Notable generally refers to any subject that has had a relatively impressive impact on society in general. Thus, Amazon.com, Homer Simpson and breadbox all get articles. A writing site, however good, far out of the mainstream and with no demonstratable impact on society is inherently not notable. If you can prove notability (eg impact on society) I'd love to be proven wrong. Incidentally, if it's as notable flash fiction as the flash fiction at the bottom of that article, why don't you just put it there as a link, rather than as a seperate entry? -- Scimitar
  • Comment: Incidentally, while going through the pages of rules, did you notice the ones about POV? Even if the article were kept it would be kept in a NPOV format. -- Scimitar
• Delete - Bye bye vanitycruft. --FCYTravis 23:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Disney: Is that tone necessary? I'm really surprised by the tenor of the comments above. Believe it or not, we thought we were supporting the wikipedia by creating an entry there.
  • Mr. Pony: I agree. I mean, I know it's a lot to expect to be taken seriously, but the editors' comments (with a few notable exceptions) have been gleefully dismissive, school-yard elitist, and even racist. I realize that an open encyclopedia must have some standards, but the content and tone of these comments has to make one wonder about the people setting these standards, and by extension, the standards themselves.
• I AM THE KING OF THE WORLD
• Hey guy. What's wrong guy?

Corvon Gundtsdottir here again. Sorry it took me so long to get back! Meeting my friends and hanging out with them turned out to take a lot longer than I expected, that's why I didn't have the chance to touch base again with you Wikipedia guys until now. One thing I forgot to mention in my last posting is that I am totally interested in karate. I haven't actually taken classes but I've always wanted to, plus I've seen probably a hundred movies (including Hong Kong Hustle which is one of the most intense films I've seen, like, ever). My friends are always amazed at how much I know about karate. What I'm driving at is, I would be totally up for writing an article on karate for the Wikipedia. I don't know a lot about the history but I could do the section about karate movies, and/or put together some diagrams showing the different kinds of moves they do. I don't draw, but I could describe the moves and techniques to your illustrator so there could be a cool visual next to the article. I haven't looked at your current entry but I'll bet I know more different kinds of kickass moves than what's up there now. I have to go to the store in a minute but I'll check back in tomorrow about 2:30pm. Let me know if you're interested in having me write about karate. I could do other topics as well but I'd be totally psyched to do the one on karate.

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Derro drummer

Description of a homeless person(s) in Melbourne, Google yields minimal results, seems unencyclopedic after the rampant mockumentary tone is removed. Recommend deletion. Mr Bound 23:44, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I've copyedited this, removed the rant part. This guy is actually real, and he's well known to people who spend alot of time in the CBD. Not sure how encyclopaedic other people will think it is though. I'll abstain for now. --bainer 01:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm changing to Keep, in the interests of promoting the representation of homeless people on Wikipedia. The drummer is notable to people who have visited the Melbourne CBD, and I would say that he is of interest to more than a small group of people. --bainer 01:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need to hear about every tramp on the other side of the world. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• I would have done {{Music-importance}} but since it would likely fail and it's here, Delete. Vegaswikian 06:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie 14:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I'd have voted delete as not notable outside Melbourne until I saw Anthony Appleyard's comment - it's not the other side of the world. the Mole People are the other side of the world for me. Busking is more common than simple begging here. --ScottDavis 14:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Could be rewritten as a part of larger busking scene in Melboune maybe, and it's not on the other side of the world for the people on that side of the world, Wikipedia is read not just by Americans. --Bobbagum 20:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I know this guy personally. I have watched him develop as a performer throughout my childhood and am still a loyal fan today. I have also bought his latest album 'On the road to nowhere'. It's a top cd! Please support the Derro Drummer and donate generously. Help keep him on our streets.
  • Comment made by 131.170.90.4
• Keep I agree. The Derro Drummer is a star. He should be in tourist travel guides for the city. He will be the next Australian Idol. Then we will finally get one with talent.
  • Comment made by 202.91.196.77
• Delete, quirky homless people are not encyclopedic until they meet some of the cirteria for biographies. --nixie 03:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Every large city has dozens of unusual homeless people. Occasionally they are mentioned in local media so there is the potential to verify some facts, but they're not encyclopedic in general. This article has no sources anyway. Quale 04:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, quirky homeless people can sometimes meet the criteria for an encyclopeadic entry. Bee Miles[11] in Sydney is the example that comes to mind (anyone care to write this article?). I've seen the derro drummer, and even appreciate his drumming, but I do not think he has achieved the notoriety for a bio entry in an encyclopeadia quite yet.--Takver 02:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 25 May 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.