Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

June 3

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jencyclopaedia

I know some great Jens too - but I really can't see how this is notable --Doc (?) 00:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the "random jenerator" qualifies it for BJAODN. Regretfully delete, fails my "anyone could do it" test. Kappa 00:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not advertising/self-promotion. --bainer (talk) 00:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The author did not add the page, I did. I mentioned this in the talk page. I won't vote because I did add the article, however I did think it was an interesting site worth a mention, as there are other "as interesting" sites on wiki.

<>Who 01:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Interesting, but not really notable. Columbia 01:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 01:55, June 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete' unless evidence is presented that it's a well-known site. But too bad it's not the Jengodcyclopedia. Then it would be worth an extreme keep. -- Decumanus 01:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
- Shall we delete it even if it has a voluminous article on User:Jengod? ;) -- Jonel 03:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 10:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - It is a website that is not well known (in the U.S. at least, don't know about England or the UK). I would vote against deletion, if this was a piece of published work instead of a website. Besides, nothing links here (what article would?) —Kjammer 10:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not vanity, but not notable. Nateji77 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: 310 google hits for Jencyclopaedia. Article is an orphan. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN 18:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)216.186.53.4
Delete unless it can be shown that this article could be significantly expanded (in accordance with Wikipedia:Importance). ··gracefool |☺ 00:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Way more interesting than a lot of the non-notable high school articles flowing in here, and at least as relevant to the Jens of the world. Denni ☯ 02:52, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete Meaningless. --minghong 06:21, 10 Jun 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. -- Scott e^iπ 05:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kae

Fan speculation on Star Wars game. --Denni ☯ 17:27, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

If valid, it probably should be merged into the Darth Traya page. But it looks too much like pure speculation, and so I vote to delete. — 18:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. There is already a Darth Traya article on Wikipedia that includes most of the information on this article. What isn't on the Darth Traya article that is present here, appears to be pure speculation, as I do not recall any mention of living quarters on Coruscant or about Yavin 4 in KotOR II. However, if this information can be backed up, it should be merged with the Darth Traya article. --Nufy8 00:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Delete. Most of this is plausible enough, but so much of it is unsourced, and AFAIK, the only source for these events are the games themselves, and I'm pretty sure that I didn't miss that much of her backstory. So bring in the confirmable details, and rm the rest. --maru 02:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Darth Traya. Jamyskis 10:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as fanfiction, barring some sources. --Scimitar 13:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At the very least, needs some carriage returns tossed into that mountain of text. Wikification and verification would also be nice. 216.158.31.195 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - uglyness is not a reason to delete, but to cleanup. Should be marked {{cleanup}} and merged. ··gracefool |☺ 00:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - This is the coolest article ever! Keep it, and you guys, stop whining about sources etc. just enjoy they article, and stop complaining!

Comment And by that logic, we should let every piece of crap article that some newbie writes stay, because its "teh coolest article EVAH!" Its not a canon source and has no place here.--Kross 10:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete As far as I know (and I've been playing KOTRII alot lately), there is no actual information on Kae. She's mentioned as one of the Jedi Masters that taught Revan and thats one of the few times she's mentioned in the game. Its believed that Kae is Krea/Darth Traya, but I'm not sure.--Kross 10:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - This is far too speculative, and cites no sources. None of this is backed up by the game, and can at best be considered only a weak implication.

Comment Again You loser, just get a life. Stop critisizing other people when you don't even know if it is false misinformation. This site would be better without people like you, Kross

I have common sense - Hey, Kross, just to tell you, I agree with you fully. Well, almost fully. You have made a good point about how newbies should not write fake stuff and put it up. Well, this is actually quite a good article, and if you cant even use you brain for once, it is backed up by the book: 'A guide to Kotor', which is both approved of and congratulated by Lucas Arts as a 'G-Canon'. Anyway, don't call this newbie stuff, the expanded universe is newbie, that load of absolute crap and garbage, so go insult yorself and stop being a low life.
- Comment. Interesting. The KotOR II strategy guide says little to nothing about Kae's background - which includes lack of information on her supposed stay on Coruscant, as well as her alleged trip to Yavin 4. And, although I do not own the original KotOR strategy guide, I highly doubt it reveals information on a character that wouldn't even make an appearance until the next year. Oh, and a guide to a Star Wars videogame being G-Canon? Maybe that's a typo, because G-Canon refers to the movies, their scripts, the novelizations of the movies, and the radio plays based on the movies. Not videogame guides. Nufy8 04:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - It would be C canon at best, but is most likely S or N. Alphax ^τεχ 10:30, 5 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robin Hutton

A policeman, then a teacher, unfortunately doesn't come close to passing WP:BIO. Kappa 00:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete agreed --Doc (?) 01:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Based on what's in the article now, he just isn't any more notable than any other individual out there. -- Captain Disdain 01:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Seems like a vanity page to me. —Kjammer 10:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity bio. --Etacar11 15:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Also pretty bad copy editing. 216.158.31.195 17:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notale. Vanity page MarkS 20:59, 3 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kishor Joshi

Contents is this: '"Kishor Joshi is a Nepali Engineer, currently with Nepal Telecom. He did his Computer Engineering from Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Pulchowk Campus". Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Kappa 00:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This guy just isn't shown to be any more notable than any other engineer. -- Captain Disdain 01:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete NeoJustin 02:38 June 3, 2004
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete also Summit Raj Tuladhar, who i think made both these pages. Nateji77 12:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity bio. --Etacar11 15:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn vanity, personal bio. 216.158.31.195 17:22, 3 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3130 Music

non-notable commercial vanity. Denni ☯ 01:02, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete, advertising/vanity. --bainer (talk) 02:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete If they wanted to advertize, the could have at least included more information than that. OnwardToGolgotha 03:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete google query returns two records and I don't think it has anything to do with 3130 Music. As Denni said, non-notable commercial vanity.
Delete. Enough said. 216.158.31.195 17:22, 3 Jun 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 - all kept, but need cleanup and renaming - SimonP 13:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

A series of articles on Imperial Japan in broken English

The following bunch of articles, covered by separate votes for deletion, IMO must be handled together.

It looks like someone took an old book on Imperial Japan and split it into a large number of article. All of them of the same quality and use: it sems that all of them cover data for past time. While pieces of them may be salvageable into corresponding articles with proper titles, in this form they are inadmissible in main article space. mikka (t) 01:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One may also want to keep an eye on other cotributions of the anon. mikka (t) 01:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- I do. I see no reason to make a mass deletion here. By putting these on VfD, rather than clean-up, you have prevented any moving to better titles, or merging. Charles Matthews
  - No I did not. see, eg my nomination at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Japanese Culture,religion and Education. If you need these pages for further work, please put them into your own user space as subpages. mikka (t) 17:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete all. If someone wants to work ith them, put into personal subpage. mikka (t) 01:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete the whole bunch. I did vote to delete on all of the individual VfDs, already, but in the interests of clarity and expediency, I figure I may as well voice the vote here, too. Seriously: the language is mangled enough that it might as well be nonsense. I honestly cannot make heads or tails of any of it, and I seriously doubt anyone could salvage anything from this mess. -- Captain Disdain 01:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. These all read like a bad Babelfish translation. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Exteremly Strong Keep!: I understand the tendency, because I ran into one of these. However, please check out User:Charles_Matthews/Imperial_Japan. These contributions are made by a spanish speaker providing information out of sources no longer in print. There are several people working on them (for instance, you can check the results at Nakamura_Diary.) Personally I've been working on Reformed Government of the Republic of China. You can see my discussion with User:Charles Matthews about this subect in the talk page. Wikibofh 03:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

then they should write them in spanish and have some who can speak english translate them before adding them as articles. i'm going to move the lot into my user page and see what i can do, though. Nateji77 13:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment:My problem with Userfying them is that then they end up in the widely ignored userspace. There is enough work here that it needs to be someplace where people can stumble upon them and work at cleaning them up (which is what I did). We need the strength in numbers, because it's hard work. It would take me a long time (if ever) if they were just in my user space (or anyone elses). I'd rather see the wiki at work. Wikibofh 14:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment Isn't it policy acceptable to put them into articlespace as something like "Imperial Japan Finances/temp". Then post any of the cleaned content to date, a note about their origin and state of development in "Imperial Japan Finances" page with a link to the temp pages? --Un focused 15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If these are reliable data are from valuable, out-of-print sources, perhaps the editor should at least *cite* the source so they have some appearance of verifiability. I don't know how you can tell what source these are from though... perhaps private correspondence? --Tabor 17:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is the bibliography that Charles Matthews has. Wikibofh 20:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I stated below on a similar comment, this makes little sense to me because (a) Charles Matthews is not contributing the foundation articles and (b) this is a general bibliography on the topic which makes no particular connection with any of the articles. I'm asking about the sources that User:Wlad k or IP number 200.46.X.Y or whatever he chooses to call himself is using. By this logic, I could write anything at all in these articles, and because Charles Matthews has a bibliography in his userspace, it would be considered sourced information. --Tabor 02:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Userfy. You should take these to a user subpage as a workspace for cleanup. Because these are so difficult to read, they're too raw to be articles. Otherwise, I think you'll spend all your time fighting off VfDs. Userfying them will let you develop them, and post them back as new articles when they've had a basic cleanup. That doesn't mean you have to wait until they're fully done, but they should at least be a short overview of a topic. You could then post the remaining raw data onto the article's talk page to allow for collaboration without exposing the severely broken english in main article pages. --Un focused 03:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again I say, delete and resubmit in the English language. EDM 04:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless Wikibofh rewrites them into English before the 5 day period is up. Rick K 05:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: *laugh* I couldn't even clean up Reformed Government of the Republic of China in the 5 day window (now at 4 days :) Wikibofh 14:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could I ask for clarification ? As a realtively new user, is it policy that articles which do not meet certain qquality standards, but on which work is being done, be deleted completely until they reach such standards, rather than marking them with requests for assistance, and allowing organic development of the entries ? --Simon Cursitor 07:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Precedent says no that isn't a policy. Wikipedia is a work in progress and thus contains thousands of articles of a visibly sub-par nature. However as Wikipedia slowly matures, and its editor base changes, the average amount of patience that the user base has with such articles has diminished. "Modify in user-space" is becoming a more common and acceptable suggestion" but I think everyone continues to agree that we don't won't to lose material. Pcb21| Pete 13:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Thank you for the clarification --Simon Cursitor 15:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The correct course of action, marking them for cleanup, has already been done. Almafeta 06:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy all of them and work on them until there is a correct English version of this that makes sense. None of these currently belong in the main namespace, and either way a lot of the titles have spelling mistakes. --Idont Havaname 06:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy artilce in this condition don't belong in the main namespace. --nixie 07:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup or use as a source. Information may be relevant but unfortunately the articles are really in very shoddy condition. People willing to work on them could move them to temp or user pages or use them, for example, as a source for articles like Empire of Japan. I do not think complete deletion would be in order - Skysmith 08:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, articles aren't up to encyclopedic quality. JamesBurns 09:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete the lot. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep the information. Please do not throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. Pcb21| Pete 10:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete the lot. I'm sure the author had the best of intentions and put a lot of work into this, but it's just too indecipherable to make out anything useful or flag it for cleanup. Jamyskis 10:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or userfy if people are working on them but they are in need of clean-up and after that movement to better titles. -- Lochaber 13:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, clean up of course. Anything that is not worth keeping in its cleaned-up state is naturally subject to being deleted. I can't understand why people say 'delete' before those who would be interested in cleaning up, rationalising and editing the material have their change. By the way, the author is a prolific contributor, with a track record of digging up much useful research from contemporary sources. Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data) has already been substantially cleaned up. I protest at its inclusion at the end of the list of others. Charles Matthews 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The reason I would vote 'delete' before cleanup is that it seems to me that cleanup would require some mindreading as to what the contributor meant by much of the existing phrasing. The contributions are neither in English nor in a language that can be translated into English. EDM 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment i cleaned up one of the articles here; so far it doesnt seem to be worth the effort, but i'll take a look at the others, see what turns up. Nateji77 14:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe it's because of my degree in Finance, but I find your cleanup efforts laudable and worthwhile. --Unfocused 15:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - yeah, but things like "the heavy industrial amplified by ones 400%"--is that revenue or assest value? the cochinglish doesnt turn me off, is the vagueness the articles would have even if they were written in native english. Nateji77 09:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Temporary keep: keep for now, but relist the lot here in a month's time, at which time any articles not cleaned up should be deleted. Since the current contents of many of these articles are baffling, this current vote's decision should not bind any future vote: the articles may be deletable on other grounds, once they've been tidied. -- Karada 15:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy unless more information about the source of this information can be obtained. I have two general problems with these articles. One is that much of the material is so garbled, I don't see how it can be reliably cleaned up. Sure, you can take some wild guesses at what the editor meant, but basically the original has been run through a distortion filter. How can this information be dependable? The second concerns the original sources. Especially in a case such as this, the source should be cited for verifiability. Somehow "This is what I think someone who doesn't speak English was trying to relate from uncited sources that cannot be checked" does not seem to be a dependable standard. For example:

in Chosen Province,the most great and important of your exterior areas residing ones 25,000,000,000(1944 census)between theirs stay one 3% of Japanese residents,why served in government,commerce,industry and Military services.exist one Chinese and Manchu little minority another Koreans living in proper japan,Manchuria and Russian Siberia.

Is there a serious suggestion that that the population of this province was 25 billion, or if the number does not refer to population, to what does it refer? Keep in mind, all this data is coming from (an) uncited source(s). --Tabor 17:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is the bibliography that Charles Matthews has. I would agree that the population of 25 billion is probably on the high side. :) Wikibofh 20:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this comment, because Charles Matthews is not the person submitting the garbled articles. This is a general all-purpose bibliography on Imperial Japan. It does not tell us where the contributor's many specific facts and figures came from. I think making something verifiable and identifying the source of data requires a bit more precision than a general purpose bibliography in userspace that is not specifically connected to any of the articles. --Tabor 01:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly these are substandard, but this is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 00:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've thought about this, and to me, the progress already evident on these articles are a prime example of how a Wiki works. However, each and every one of these should be moved to an article title appropriate for what the core editors believe will be the end result. If you later find your guess was wrong, move them again. ;) Un focused 01:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and resubmit if they're in English. My day job is checking English translations done by Japanese engineers, and nothing I've seen on the job has been as bad as these. These are too garbled to be even minimally acceptable, and any acceptable "clean-up" would have to be a complete replacement of the text. --Calton | Talk 07:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Imperial Japan is extremely noteworthy, but repair the translations. ~~~~ 17:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy / Move to temporary space I have worked on a few of these articles and have two strong concerns.

With the original text in Japanese and the contributor being a spanish speaker we are looking at three translation steps here: Japanese → Spanish → broken English → English. When working on the broken English I've been worried that I have been at risk of changing the original information. Quite honestly, I concluded that the integrity of the information was getting compromised as a result of the multiple translation steps.
The contributor is highly prolific. A look at User:Charles_Matthews/Imperial_Japan reveals several dozen articles and content seems to be added daily. The sheer volume of fixing them combined with the risks of information loss/distortion suggest that the issue of problematic articles from this source will persist and likely grow unless the Wikipedia community comes up with a way to actively manage it. I don't think we should delete this information, but we should quarantine it for further work. If we do nothing, I fear we'll be back here in a month having the same conversation but with an even longer list of articles. Even worse, I fear we'll end up with a bunch of articles that have been cleaned up from broken English but are full of inaccuracies because none of the translation can be confirmed.

Tobycat 23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Keep in mind that if this is just a translation (however bad) of a work protected by copyright, it would be copyvio. --Tabor 01:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Too many problems; complete rewrite needed, lack of sources plus inability to learn sources due to contributor anonymity and poor language skills, potentially copyvio, inability to determine copyvio status. If people want to, they could be userfied and merged but the source and copyvio questions remain very pertinent, with no likely resolution DirectorStratton 02:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete drini ☎ 17:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is nothing wrong with tagging such as stubs, clean. Suspecting a copyright problem is not proof one has occured. Futhermore, if these are translations, copyrights devolve to the translator, iirc, which makes Copyvio moot.
- I should be able to attend to some cleansing as I continue working through Russo-Japanese War related artys, whereon, I have no less than eight references spanning six decades, about half of which treat some of these topics (Based on a quick peek at the Vfd nominees). I'm not sure why some Artys seem imcomprehensible -- apparently those voters lack contextual knowledge, and should perhaps exercise more discretion. Several of the articles are especially bad in that they are period focused (circa WW-II ands aftermath) without refering to prior or subsequent (to current days) history, but that merely confirms their status as a stub needing expansion.
- Timeframe of five days might be suitable to a student's life, assuming one was prone to ignore classwork and Wiki full time, which I hope seldom happens. So expecting such ultra-rapid clean up by contributors that are also provinding family members would pretty much kill off a lot of slow developing wiki-improvements, as we do have lives outside Wikipedia.
- Spelling Mistakes was mentioned above, to which I need to add two comments. 1) Correct Spelling is an abstract ideal. Language drift has altered correct usages a lot in my 50 years, and so too have meanings changed. Take the term Wicked, use of a phrase like "She's Wicked" refered more to 'being bad, only worse and evil to boot' than today's usage (not to mention the uses of the word Bad these days). One problem with my work on the Russo-Japanese war, is that there are five different languages involved: Russian, Chinese, Brittish, Japanese, and American. Then again, one author noted that there were no less than eight different English renderings of a single Russian Admirals name; bad spellings (and typos) in sum, will be corrected. Ususally inside 45 minutes if MY Experience is a reliable measure! Fabartus 00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Hey, just because someone doesn't have perfect English doesn't mean you have to ignore what they wrote. But these articles have to be cleaned up. And other articles have to link to these articles, too, or no one will ever see them ,and that wouldn't be a good thing. Pufferfish101 04:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These articles are impossible. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keeep. Has good info, even if badly written. I wish though that the author at least use basic typographical standards, like putting space after comma, and create an account. Oleg Alexandrov 03:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. DS1953 22:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are articles like Japanese expansionism and Meiji period which are properly named and contain much of this information, or at least headings under which much of this information should go. I cannot believe that Wikipedia is well served by pages titled "Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation" or "Comments of Japanese Finanzes". Extract the useful information, add it to the relevant articles, create new relevant articles if necessary. But delete articles with incoherent, rambling, misspelled names and contents. Ben-w 22:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, that is the Wiki way. Paul August ☎ 14:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bert Van Munster

Merged with The Amazing Race. Denni ☯ 01:08, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Redirect. Kappa 01:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. I believe if you've merged the terms of the GFDL require us to either keep the original article edit history or merge histories. The former is probably best. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
Keep and Expand. Host Phil Keoghan has his own article, yet his filmography is no bigger than Van Munster.--Madchester 19:06, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Keep and Expand. Bert Van Munster also helped produce the television series COPS, if I'm not mistaken. Mike H 19:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If someone is going to expand with some new information, they can recreate the article. ··gracefool |☺ 01:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not inherently notable. JamesBurns 04:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand. TV producers are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Mike H. Maybe we should rename this to Bertram Van Munster since that's his name in the COPS credits. --SuperDude 05:21, 14 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygon sum conjecture

It is well known that the sum of angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, for a quadrilateral it is 360 degrees, and for a polygon with n sides it is 180*(n-2). This is not a conjecture, rather a very easy to prove theorem. So, this article is a hoax. Shall we have it deleted? Oleg Alexandrov 01:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's not a conjecture, title is a joke, and information is already found in polygon. drini ☎ 01:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Dmharvey Talk 01:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 01:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No redirect. No such thing. mikka (t) 01:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A hoax. Every schoolchild learns this fact; it's not a conjecture. Michael Hardy 02:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. With the quality of math textbooks at the junior-high and high-school levels, it's quite possible that there exists a geometry book which uses this term. But you'll never see that book in MY classroom... ESkog 02:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete NeoJustin 02:37 June 3, 2004
Comment: It's not a hoax. A quick Google search shows that it the expression is used pedagogically -- when presented it is conjectural, and it is for the students to prove them. Or something like that. Perhaps this should be deleted, but certainly not for any of the reasons set forth above. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A conjecture is an unsolved problem in mathematics. The thing for students, is I think called homework problem. Oleg Alexandrov 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, and the usage disturbs me -- but deleting it because we don't think it should be used that way doesn't mean it isn't used that way -- our opinion of the usage is irrelevant. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All the relevant information is available in polygon. Oleg Alexandrov 15:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Polygon --Tabor 03:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Polygon Given that you can find this on google, somone might search wikipedia for it. Klonimus 10:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Term is not appropriate for the concept described; material already exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with TenOfAllTrades. — JIP | Talk 10:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete--MarSch 12:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to polygon. Personally, really, I'd favour a full explication and working out of the conjecture itself - seemingly-simple questions such as "what is 1 + 1" and "how many degrees are in a circle" can be expanded to really interesting fields of math, but, as is, the article has nothing. It seems like it could be something interesting, but, until it is, it's less than nothing. 216.158.31.195 17:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. But also, where would be the best place for actual mathematical proofs? Wikipedia, Wikisource or Wikibooks? the wub (talk) 17:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Polygon. "Polygon sum conjecture" is a misnomer, but it seems to be a misnomer with some currency. Someone who encountered this phrase might look it up in Wikipedia; it would be good if they found an article that explained that the "conjecture" is actually a long-established theorem. -- Dominus 20:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect if people actually use this. Those who do will be educated when they are redirected to the correct title. No Account
Redirect seems to be school curriculum of some sort, a method of teaching elementary geometry: one forms a conjecture, and then one proves it. Horridly named; I urge all to participate in school discussions because nonsense like this is rampant throughout the American school system (dudn't know bout no furen skools, tho). linas 22:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Term does not have much currency (81 Google hits for "polygon sum conjecture" -wikipedia) and is a misuse of the word "conjecture". Eric119 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, since it can never be more than a stub. ··gracefool |☺ 01:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'BTW, it's easily could be a conjecture in some geometry for which it is unknown if it's Euclidean. Grue 12:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Usage is extremely rare and limited to a couple of texts. In this way any theorem may be called "conjecture". Indeed, there ase some theorems that for a long time knwn as conjectures, and usage of such kind of redirect would be justifiable. This is most clearly not the case. mikka (t) 15:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not a conjecture. The "conjecture" terminology is only used pedagogically in first few Google hits. A5 19:52, 8 Jun 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 (Check!) 13:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pukavik

delete -- while Pukavik is apparently a real place in Sweden, no serious information is provided here (e.g.,"Pukavik means 'to powk week' it smells kinda funny there). carmeld1 23:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no vote: Tagged as VfD but apparently never listed at the page.--Nabla 01:24, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete. Unless we can get any actual information there, it's a worthless page and should be deleted. MegaSlicer 01:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've created a good stub, and tagged it as such. Hopefully it will continue to improve; I'm afraid my Swedish isn't up to the job of finding more information sources. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep what with the edit. Good job, Ten Of All Trades. Almafeta 04:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I was working on the stub at the same time. Good thing Firefox keeps stuff in the submit window during edit conflicts! (When you hit the "back" button.) Expanded article, but I also speak no Swedish. --Un focused 04:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) underlined text added Un focused 20:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good work expanding it. DS1953 06:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. JamesBurns 09:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good work. Jamyskis 10:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep' this new version please Yuckfoo 18:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Recent edits make this wroth keeping MarkS 21:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's obviously already a decent stub. ··gracefool |☺ 01:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Now a good stub on real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 05:23, 5 Jun 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

Roman letters used in mathematics

The answer to this article is all! The article limited itself to two, unfortunately. Oleg Alexandrov 01:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where did you see two? owever one has to admit that the article has certain merit: there do exist certain conventions, like xyz are for unknowns, abc are for knowns, ijklmn are for integer counters, etc. $\mathbb {R}$ $\mathbb {R}$ is guess what? It would be a good idea to collect all Typographical conventions in mathematical formulae, like, $\sum$ $\sum$ , $\nabla$ $\nabla$ , $\aleph$ $\aleph$ , $\iff$ $\iff$ , etc., into one place mikka (t) 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You mean like Table of mathematical symbols? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - No, I did not mean it. math symbols are special symbols like $\iff$ $\iff$ or $\cup$ $\cup$ , and they are only part of math conventions. Letters of various alphabets have some predefined meanings in math. mikka (t) 14:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Table of mathematical symbols already contains letters of various alphabets, although it is certainly not complete. I can now see how this article and its Greek counterpart could be useful, although this whole set of articles could use some instensive re-organization – there are gaps in some places and duplications in others. I'd be willing to help. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 15:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nearly no content, useless as a redirect. Keep or Merge pending figuring out how the heck to reorg all of this info. :-) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 15:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not a useful title for searching, and the important stuff should already be in Table of mathematical symbols. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong. mikka (t) 14:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with android. This/these topics should be in an "instensive re-organization"

Keep or Merge with Greek letters used in mathematics. At least let it evolve for a while. --R.Koot 19:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep article seems to be evolving in positive directions.linas 23:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article is already good, and I can see it being very useful when it's more complete. --cesarb 00:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per R.Koot's comment. ··gracefool |☺ 01:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but move and change article name to Uses of Roman letters in Mathematics. Pufferfish101 04:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update

This article is ment to be updated by others. I found the A part in the Latin Alphabet article. I am not vary good at creating math articles, as can be seen in Greek letters used in mathematics. I encourage you to put more content in this article.

The crator of this article, 68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions 10:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem to be planning to contribute much to wikipedia, please create yourself a user name. It takes only a few minues, but has a number of benefits. mikka (t) 15:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creating a username is very good advice. It will make it a lot easier to collaborate with you on the merger/reorg, especially if you have a dynamic IP. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 15:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

As stated in My personal page, my mom has full control over weather or not I can sign up for something. I can contribute to articles without her permission, though. I had a large fight with someone in 2003 in a chat room, that is why mom has full control on where I sign up. I will talk to her about getting signed up here this evening.

Ask your mom to read this page. Mom, give your kid a login on wikipedia. I have two kids of my own and I'm thrilled that we've got someone young here who is interested in contributing in a positive way to encyclopedia pages on mathematics! Anyway, a wikipedia login doesn't actually obligate you to do anything other than what your're already obligated to do. linas 23:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, if she's wary of flamewars, fighting is (theoretically) less, er, flamey on Wikipedia, given the policies on civility and no personal attacks. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. This fellow Teg Gunter is an intersting fellow; he's not a kid and the "mom" reference threw me. Moved to User_talk:68.169.113.246 linas 23:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She let me have a username, User:Admiral Roo smile

Update 2

mikka, you have a good idea, Typographical conventions in mathematical formulae. See that pages discussion page.

Keep--Scimitar 22:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tourism in Italy

As it now stands, this article is a tiny stub not about Tourism in Italy, but about Italy; and historically, the article has been a magnet for link spam. There is nothing in this that, if it has any value at all, doesn't belong under Italy. An article about Tourism in Italy would presumably be about the encouragement of tourism, tourism incentives, the tourism business, revenues from tourism, the breakdown of what kind of tourists they get, etc. Nobody is writing this — I'm not about to — and if someone does, at least until it gets substantial, it can be put as a section under Italy. Bill 01:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Italy to encourage readers and helpful contributors to go to the right place until we have enough to break this article out on its own. -- Jonel 03:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete a large chunk of this article appears to have been cut and pasted from here [1]. Possible copyvio. JamesBurns 09:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Italy. Jamyskis 10:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Italy to encourage editing and remove this version from the history if it turns out to be a copyvio. Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Part of a large series of articles about national tourism. These articles do describe common tourist destinations. I don't see a good reason to make an exception just for Italy, which has a significant tourism industry. :) — RJH 15:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
obvious keep ever heard of Rome? Florence? Pompeii? Venice? Pisa? Dunc|☺ 18:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. What grounds do you have for deletion? It could easily become a long article. ··gracefool |☺ 01:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have indeed heard of Rome (on which my own website runs to 600 pages), Venice, etc. All of these places have their own articles. "Tourism in Italy" suggests, not to belabor the point, that the article is about tourism, in Italy. Which this article, currently, is not. I agree with Gracefool that it could easily become a long article: but with not one shred of the stuff currently in it. (Hint: you want an article about tourism in Italy, write it yourself! The hotel industry, the economic impact of tourism, the foreign currency brought into the country, the training of hotelkeepers and restaurateurs, the value of tourism for the country's image, the government institutes that train tourism workers, endless etc.'s, absolutely: no shortage of material. Have at it!) But vague comments about Florence, and link spam to whatever website owner (out of many thousands out there) happens to add here, and hyperbole about how beautiful Italy is and how much stuff it's got (couldn't agree more), doesn't make an article.... Bill 02:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Falphin 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would vote Keep and cleanup if not a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep A lot of very good articles were once a lot worse than this. Oliver Chettle 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Good Stub start for what can be a whole series of interesting Artys. Could act as a magnet for tentative editors as people planning a trip stumble across and add to it. Suggest the flaming sarcasims above be avoided in future discussions. An article on tourism will definitely have a whole different format and set of acceptable editorial practices than a factual article on Italy. The later would certainly be dotted with GDP, Resources, Population, and other statistical compilations, whereas the tourism article would focus pretty much on fun stuff. If someone is severely insulted by it's short nature, I daresay a visit to the local library will turn up several references that can lead to expansion.
- wrt this (opening) comment: "An article about Tourism in Italy would presumably be about the encouragement of tourism, tourism incentives, the tourism business, revenues from tourism, the breakdown of what kind of tourists they get, etc.", This article should perhaps be renamed Tourism In Italy (Guide) as I interpret the authors intent, with the drier factual matters allocated to a heading in the Italy article. Fabartus 01:17, 8 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dillon doyle

Blatant vanity is not (unfortunately) a criterion for speedy delete, so here we are. He's a "pretty good" student and does "alright" in chemistry. Please applaud, then delete. Denni ☯ 01:49, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

applauds, Delete. NeoJustin 02:42 June 3, 2004
Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 03:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Spelling. Is spelling a criterion? Vanity then. --Tysto 03:22, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete high school vanity. --Etacar11 15:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - His arch enamy (sic) seems to be the English language, not French. OnwardToGolgotha 15:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. That's right, every award!!!!11one 216.158.31.195 17:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Unlike others I do not see any spelling errors. I also don't think this is vanity. It is clearly an artical about a vital piece of SLP history!!!
- (unsigned comment by Dmoney45 who has previously vandalized and blanked this page --Etacar11 04:00, 17 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drag Race Devils

Vanity, unfortunately, is not a criterion for speedy delete. Delete Denni ☯ 01:55, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete NeoJustin 02:48 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- More than just vanity; it serves only as a spam for their web site. Grandma Ruth would be ashamed. --Tysto 03:25, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete club vanity. JamesBurns 09:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Jamyskis 10:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 15:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And by "87 Buick Regal," they mean plastic-covered Honda Civic. 216.158.31.195 17:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously needs to be cleaned-up, but this club is of potential interest to hundreds of people. Vanity alone is not enough reason to delete. ··gracefool |☺ 01:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Arizona State University or Delete. Vegaswikian 06:29, 4 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gary May

Vanity. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity page.--The Grza 01:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete NeoJustin 02:36 June 3, 2004
Delete -- Good luck to Gary in all his future endeavors. --Tysto 03:35, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete. Article itself explains that he is not notable. jni 06:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete What, no picture? Vanity. --Etacar11 15:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What, a guy? 216.158.31.195

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. JeremyA 04:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edward boggles

Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion. It is, however, a criterion for deletion on VfD. Denni ☯ 02:01, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. No relevant google results. --bainer (talk) 02:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article establishes non-notability: His first release ... was never released. jni 06:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, musicians who haven't released anything are not notable. — JIP | Talk 10:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I think he's aka Gypsy Dave - vanity --Doc (?) 08:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and Gypsy Dave, too. - Rlw (Talk) 14:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Etacar11 16:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 'nuff said already. 216.158.31.195 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fine, delete it. I had no idea how strict your rules were.
- Unsigned vote by User:162.119.232.105
Keep Edward Boggles has a cult following in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
- Unsigned vote also by User:162.119.232.105

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. JeremyA 04:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helen Shen

Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion (but I do wonder how many votes it takes to get elected as Toronto's wildest student). Denni ☯ 02:06, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Patent vanity. jni 06:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nateji77 13:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. I'm sure when she's older it won't be something she's proud of. --Etacar11 16:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If she weren't 13, "wildest student" would be quite the accomplishment. As is, I'm sure she got the title by watching Digimon instead of Pokemon. 216.158.31.195 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "If she weren't 13, "wildest student" would be quite the accomplishment." This makes absolutely no sense. But just delete it. DrippingInk 20:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I meant that being the wildest student in her grade in Toronto (or wherever) (if it could even be quantified) would be quite the accomplishment... were she older than 13. 216.158.31.195 18:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 18:13, 6 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Custom PC magazine

The magazine may be notable, I don't know, but this looks like an ad.--Nabla 02:13, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

vote changed to keep, since it looks like it is notable and the current stub look OK.--Nabla 00:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Delete and delete the associated image files, clearly created as a promotion for the magazine.--nixie 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- What is this? This doesn't even make sense as advertising. It looks like a cut-and-paste from their web site. --Tysto 03:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Move to BJAODN. This is not only a bad attempt at promotion ex Wikipedia, it is an epically bad example. Almafeta 04:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this promotional webpage and all the irrelevant images (faces etc.) but keep the hardware pictures, they might be useful for real articles. (Assuming the uploader won't bother us with any silly copyright games). jni 06:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Magazine by a major UK publisher, audited circulation more than 24,000 (ABC, Jul-Dec 2004) one year after its introduction. That's good circulation in the UK market for a specialist niche magazine. The content needs a severe editing (yes, it's obviously intended as an ad) but it shouldn't be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. If anyone wants to write an encyclopedic article about this publication, they may do so at any time. If Tony Sidaway thinks we need an article on it but doesn't want to start it himself, he should post it as an requested article. Leaving this article in place does no good. Acorns may grow into oaks, but artificial Christmas trees do not. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I think you'll find that this is incorrect. If you visit the article right now you'll see that a perfectly good stub has been created by the simple expedient of deleting the trash. I've never understood the "slash and burn" approach to unwanted content. If an article contains stuff you don't like, delete that content, you don't even need to come to VfD to do that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete but keep a stub. Might be good to see where it goes. Possible copyvio? 216.158.31.195 17:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this please it can just be edited if you dont like it Yuckfoo 18:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is undeniably an ad, but it is a relatively significant publication. I decided to be bold and chopped out all the fluff and most of the pictures, which left merely a stub. Gamaliel 19:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good. 216.158.31.195 20:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- None of those 35 orphaned images are tagged, by the way. Uncle G 02:10, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep Very good UK magazine.
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 01:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. This is a notable publication but the article is just plain advertising that's looks like a copyvio. JamesBurns 04:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I haven't read the original version but the current version has been purged of advertising (thanks, whoever did the cleaning); keep this perfectly respectable stub. JamesMLane 08:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep a legitamate stub Falphin 19:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep stub on UK magazine with reasonable circulation. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep See no difference, save longevity and brevity, from The New Yorker or Time Magazine which even show similar cover pages. Fabartus 01:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Leave the stub it says enough. Nothing to do with the magazine's editorial staff, we just saw this today. As for advertising, it's highly unlikely. --Rogan 16:52, 8 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ibrosia

Micronation. I rest my case. Denni ☯ 02:14, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete all micronations. 32 unique Googles. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- A micronation needs three names? --Tysto 03:33, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete all micronations. Rick K 05:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Micronation. jni 06:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete micronation cruft. JamesBurns 09:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Any micronation that relies on tripod pages to become known on the net isn't worthy of inclusion. At least bother to buy a domain name and hire a web designer. I find "My country, founded in 1999, I'll let the site explain the rest." on this site particularly funny. As if it's that easy to found a nation... Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete micronation vanity. --Etacar11 16:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Oh MacGyver, it is that easy to found a nation. You just don't tell anyone it exists, modify your constitution to comply with the laws of the land, and do nothing. 216.158.31.195 17:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete until it has at least 4 times as many members... ··gracefool |☺ 01:21, 4 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Meyer

Vanity is not (unfortunately) a criterion for speedy delete. But we can do it here. Denni ☯ 02:27, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete — Vanity article, and nothing (except for vfd and user page) links there. — Kjammer 02:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. nn. jni 06:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete teenage vanity. --Etacar11 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sure Amanda Principato (Or whatever her name is - I closed the window and can't be bothered to open again) is proud of him. But I'm not. 216.158.31.195 17:14, 3 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Envisioneering

Nonsense; advertising. --Tysto 02:43, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete, neologism. Google results are mostly a company by the same name, and horrible feel-good marketing websites. --bainer (talk) 03:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deletioneer this nonsense. —tregoweth 09:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and imagineer a Wikipedia without it. (Ad.) Geogre 15:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Poor english, no wikification... bullgarbagination! 216.158.31.195 17:14, 3 Jun 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 DELETED. JeremyA 04:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leetzor

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Meweight Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for sad sad l33t speak.--EatAlbertaBeef 22:51, 3 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Richard Geckle/Temp

Vanity is not a speedy delete criterion. But it works here. Denni ☯ 02:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete -- What's not to love? He's in it for the "move of teaching" people. Still, not encyclopedic. --Tysto 03:38, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
53% of the community agreed that vanity is a speedy delete criterion, I believe. I always speedy these type of pages. Delete --Barfooz (talk) 03:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think you ought to review the speedy delete criteria then. Vanity is clearly (and unfortunately) not one of them. I would also like to know the source of your "53%" comment. Denni ☯ 23:58, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete this and also the parent Richard Geckle (VfD) which is also in copyvio processing, so no need to actually vote twice. Patent vanity, not notable, could be seen as libel/attack page. I wonder how Barfooz speedies vanity pages given he does not have access to the delete button, but I like his reasoning in the above comment. jni 06:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. same as above. 216.158.31.195 17:13, 3 Jun 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. JeremyA 04:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony Collette

Non-notable User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete; I almost speedied it, but I don't think vanity pages qualify for speedying. Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Wait a minute. A level 53 human paladin? Surely that qualifies for Wikifame (or what hope do I have?). --Tysto 03:29, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete and why not speedy? We all know that no one is going to vote to keep this for legitimate reasons. --Barfooz (talk) 03:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Policy is here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy -- vanity articles are supposed to go through the VfD process. I seem to remember a squabble over changing the policy a few months ago, but it was decided not to make vanity speediable. Antandrus (talk) 03:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - The poll is at Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_III_(Vanity_articles). It failed with only 44% support while 80% was needed to pass. Basically many users preferred see ten blatant vanity articles go through a long VfD process and finally get deleted, in order to save the one article which looked like vanity but actually was notable. But this is clearly vanity, even with a level 53 human paladin, so ~~delete~~ from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Redirect to Toni Collette is perhaps a better option yes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - In practice things like this do get speedied a lot, it fits under the "no claim to notability" criterion being proposed on the vfd talk page. Kappa 07:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and recreate as a redirect to Toni Collette. Rick K 05:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect like RickK said. jni 06:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Toni Collette. JamesBurns 09:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Toni Collette. A common enough misspelling. Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per RickK This link is Broken 16:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 53 isn't even maxed out, is it?

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. JeremyA 05:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Bell

Delete. Another obvious vanity article that, unfortunately, can't be speedied. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- "Obsessed with Wikipedia"? Well, he's not all bad. --Tysto 03:40, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete and why not speedy? We all know that no one is going to vote to keep this for legitimate reasons. --Barfooz (talk) 03:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Patent vanity. jni 07:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another vanity article of a non-notable high school student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete insufferable vanity. --Etacar11 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Insufferable? Probably. Knows it all? Probably not. 216.158.31.195 17:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Okay, they say not to give your full name out over the internet, but I regret to inform you that this is about me. I had nothing to do with its creation; my friend did that without telling me first (my response: "I'm gonna list it on Votes for Deletion!"). I'll add that it's all true, and that I hope I won't always be non-notable ;-) --Theaterfreak64 21:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, have your friend slap a {{db|deletion requested by sole contributor}} on it. There's no reason to keep this around. (Also, tell your "friend" that posting personal information about you under your real name really ought to be your decision.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:58, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - Perhaps I should have mentioned that, upon hearing about it, another of my friends came along and added the second paragraph. Any ideas? --Theaterfreak64 23:25, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    - I guess this one gets to wait it out, then. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Err, the speedy tag goes on the article, and the one I suggested above no longer applies, because more than one editor has contributed to the article's content. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:51, Jun 5, 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 19:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Trip Ross

This individual is not notable. He's got one website with a bunch of amateur video and original flash programming. Alltheweb and Google searches on his "company" only produce hits to his website. The guestbook on his website has only 60 entries. Not encyclopedic and likely a vanity entry. Tobycat 22:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 22:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What Tobycat says is accurate. hydnjo talk 02:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Joke137 16:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity, not listed in IMDB. --Etacar11 17:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same as above. 216.158.31.195 17:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If this vanity article is deleted then we should also Vfd or Speedy his self-nominated birthdate of March 14 1979 as not notable. hydnjo talk 18:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed his birthdate from March 14, as in any case he isn't that important. ··gracefool |☺ 01:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks. I didn't know if I was allowed to do that. hydnjo talk 02:15, 4 Jun 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 19:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Crohn's quest

Although I support any effort to cure disease, this isn't the place to advertise for this. Neither is it notable: Google shows no results. [2] Barfooz (talk) 03:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete too recent, theyre planning to do things that might be notable enough for an article but havent done them yet. if some of their plans come off, maybe it'll warrant an article then. Nateji77 14:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: An announcement for an unfortunately-named organization (King's Quest to Crohn's Quest?), and they have not yet achieved uniformity or unifying the efforts. Geogre 15:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ··gracefool |☺ 02:04, 4 Jun 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 19:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of lists of atrocities

Useless list, unsearchable title, define "atrocity". User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, "list of lists" needs a very good reason to stay. Perhaps Category:Lists of atrocities might be workable however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unmaintainable POV list. JamesBurns 09:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mistitled POV list. Unmaintainable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as above. 216.158.31.195 17:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete after checking nothing on the list is not at List of massacres. David | Talk 20:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is what categories were invented for. Denni ☯ 02:58, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete. Sahasrahla 03:42, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: keep. sjorford →•← 22:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eric Angle

Being someone's brother doesn't make you notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does when he's also a professional wrestler in his own right - ~~I think he even wrestled at a Wrestlemania once, or at least one or two of the pay per views.~~ Correction - he hasn't wrestled at Wrestlemania, but did wrestle at Survivor Series as well as on Raw and on Smackdown. Keep. Tufflaw 04:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Almafeta 05:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Tufflaw said it --Bletch 16:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article is, admittedly, a stub, but it knows so. If we can have so many Pokemon articles, no reason to not have this.
keep please because he is notbale too Yuckfoo 18:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 01:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable Falphin 19:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Professional wrestler so someone is likely to be interested in finding info on him. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable "pro wrestler" in his own right. Xoloz 06:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep: very notable, i will place on WikiProject to do list. Paulley 11:55, 6 Jun 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 19:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Stefan Bauschard

Vanity page about a high school debate coach. Delete BaronLarf 04:01, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. At best, he belongs in his high school's page. Almafeta 04:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - While I think the efforts of Mr. Bauschard urgently need to be recognized on an international level, I'm an asshole and want to upset the user who put up the page by vouching for its deletion. OnwardToGolgotha 05:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. No encyclopedic content, just a platform for an ext. link. jni 07:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I did debate, too, but I was sane enough to realize that nothing I did was worthy of note by anyone outside of the tournaments. Geogre 16:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't play those games. 216.158.31.195 17:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 17:15, 3 Jun 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 19:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jammno

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, personal bio Krupo 04:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Not notable. jni 07:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Personal contact info, non-notable gamer.
Delete is professional gamer really an occupation?? vanity. --Etacar11 17:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete; guy just doesn't seem to be notable, as far as I (and Google) can tell. (But yeah, Etacar11, it is. Lots of money in some of the tournaments -- first prizes can be in excess of USD100,000. Easily enough to live on, if you go to enough of them and are good enough; apparently the ones at the top can pull in a half a million bucks a year.) -- Captain Disdain 13:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I reverted a removal of the VFD tag and will also vote delete. Mr Bound 15:15, Jun 11, 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 19:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hidden Cove

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like a contentless advertisement to me. Almafeta 04:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless something of note happened there, not much room for expansion. --Etacar11 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, secluded areas usually don't make good articles, unless something is said about the geology, weater, or nature there. If I were to delete the POV word "lovely" nothing much would be left. A retry in creating this won't require this edit. Mgm|^(talk) 19:09, Jun 3, 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 DELETED. JeremyA 05:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Castle Point King

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, unencyclopedic. Tufflaw 04:33, Jun 3, 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 20:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

D.H. Records

This "independent record label" appears to record only the label's owner, who does not seem to be notable. Delete. Jonathunder 04:40, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete non notable, possible self promotion. JamesBurns 09:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Both for non-notable and self-promotion. 216.158.31.195 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn/vanity/self-promotion. And pro wrestling and gospel music seems like an odd pairing, but that's just me. --Etacar11 17:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- My dear Etacar, you forget the Ultimate Warrior - who fights in the ring to the glory of his ultra-neo-conservative lord! 216.158.31.195 18:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Ahh. I don't get out much... ;) --Etacar11 18:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - It happens ;) Guess it doesn't say much about me that the only reason I know about him is thanks to SomethingAwful/ 216.158.31.195 18:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Label is small and plans to sign other artists. --Goofy14 01:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's only edit. --Etacar11 22:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Correction, my first and this is my second edit. Also, I looked at the article's history of edits. It's funny, Jonathunder did several edits for a few months, before submitting a VFD. --Goofy14 01:36, 14 Jun 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 19:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Joink

Looks like advertising, local company DS1953 04:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Almost definately advertising. Almafeta 05:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. useless. 216.158.31.195 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete.
Delete ad. --Etacar11 17:33, 3 Jun 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 deleted. sjorford →•← 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

National Cowper's Fluid Day

Unverifiable. Delete. Jonathunder 05:13, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

It's over at speedy deletions for being patent nonsense, now. Almafeta 06:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or speedy. Kappa 06:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 09:34, 3 Jun 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 19:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kepple Disney

Grandparents of famous people are not notable. I think this article has been through VfD before, but I can't find it. Rick K 05:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Almafeta 05:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain your votes. RickK 06:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - If you need one: He's notable enough for Wikipedia. Almafeta 06:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - That's not an explanation, that's just a restatement of what you already said. An explanation would state why you think he's notable.----Isaac R 01:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I think "keep" votes need not be explained - articles are presumptively to be kept, unless they can be shown to lack encyclopedic criteria. The burden is on the person voting "delete" to justify their vote (as I have below). -- BD2412 ^talk 14:06, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
      - But that isn't going to convince anyone to change their mind or vote keep; a really cogent explanation might.RJFJR 16:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
      - There's no rule that says you have to explain your votes -- but maybe there should be. Even though we call our opinions "votes", we're not counting heads here. We're supposed to be building a consensus. If people just throw out their opinions without trying to participate in the discussion, they're showing no interest in consensus building. If nobody's interested in consensus building, then we're all wasting our time! ----Isaac R 01:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion says, For best results, please show your working to indicate the reasoning underpinning your vote. This allows others to suggest compromises if necessary, or to point out alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine, at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed, and whether your comments still apply after a rewrite of or a significant change to the article that occurred subsequently.. Rick K 04:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not a geneology database. I can understand royal lineages, but I don't think we need a separate article for each relative of each notable person. Kepple is already mentioned in Elias Disney and Disney family articles and that should be enough. I couldn't find a previous VfD, but noticed that Kepple Disney II has been speedily deleted (valid speedy per CSD #A1). jni 06:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this isn't WikiGenealogy. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. RickK establishes why. Harro5 08:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just because your grandson becomes famous does not automatically make you notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not inherently notable. JamesBurns 09:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:06, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete. Being related to notable people does not make you notable. Gamaliel 16:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge into Walt Disney if so desired. 216.158.31.195 17:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable himself. --Etacar11 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need geneology info and he's already mentioned elsewhere. Redirect to Disney family if desired. Seems a better idea than redirecting to "Walt Disney". Mgm|^(talk) 19:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- My bad. Didn't know there was a Disney genealogy. Definitely belongs there, then. 216.158.31.195 20:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, not even for famous people. Martg76 21:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
... whereas Wikitree is a genealogy site. There is a nice shiny entry for Kepple Disney at Wikitree. This person does not fulfil any of the WP:BIO criteria and this article contains only genealogy. Delete. Uncle G 01:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey S. Gilpin

This page appeat to be an orphan about a non encyclopedic person.

Delete. Looks like a failed attempt to get into BJAODN. Almafeta 06:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with Almafeta. --Idont Havaname 06:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Exact article title gets no Google results. "Geoff Gilpin" gets 189; "Geoffrey Gilpin", 4. --Idont Havaname 06:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This "theory" also gets zero Google hits. Too boring for BJAODN. jni 07:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-n. 216.158.31.195 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete neither he nor his theory appear notable. --Etacar11 17:44, 3 Jun 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 was redirect to Mithril. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien metal

All these bullshit metal "genres" have to go. While metal bands frequently employ lyrics derived or inspired by Tolkien's literature, this is not enough to warrant the declaration of a new genre. The only band that has a consistent Tolkien theme is Summoning, and even so, their music is not identified as "Tolkien metal" by them or their fans. What this page lacks in information it more than compensates for in inaccuracies. The only ostensible connection between Isengard and "Tolkien metal" is the band's name; Isengard is a folk metal side project of Darkthrone's Fenriz. OnwardToGolgotha 05:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep. Some of the bands appear to describe themselves that way, and I see some metal e-zine results. A lot of the results are Wikipedia mirrors though (and there are quite a lot of them), however. I don't see any harm done in leaving it here; it appears legitimate. --Idont Havaname 06:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mithril. Radiant_* 11:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Mithril has nothing to do with the music, though. I suspect a joke. :-) --Idont Havaname 18:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - It's not a joke... when I hear the term 'tolkien metal', what I think of is 'mithril' rather than some obscure subgenre of music. I do realize it's silly though :) And yes, I did mean delete & redirect. Radiant_>|< 01:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    - Well, joke redirects have their own special place. We did have somebody trying to redirect Culture of England to Pub. And, er... yes... there is one page of Google hits for "mithril" + "Tolkien metal". --Idont Havaname 06:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Grins. Redirect per R. --Scimitar 13:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mithril, per Radiant!. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:01, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete imaginary music genres. No one refers to mithril as "Tolkien metal." —Wahoofive (talk) 23:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. My sense of humour also permits a redirect to mithril if that outcome is supported by wikiconsensus. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mithril. :) NeoJustin 02:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mithril with much praise for Radiant. -- Jonel 04:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep I have heard this term used before, but I'm not sure where. Falphin 19:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As other editors have said, it's pretty much a fake genre. (For those above, note that "redirect" votes will essentially count as "keep"s.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Is this because Mithril has nothing at all to do with the music genre called "Tolkien metal"? --Idont Havaname 02:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - No, it's just that, as the Guide to Votes for deletion explains: "There are thus just two basic votes: Keep, indicating that you wish the article and its edit history to be kept; Delete, indicating that you wish the article and its edit history to be deleted. All other votes are simply shorthands for one of those two actions". ""Redirect to Example" is a shorthand for "Keep and change into a redirect article pointing to Example"." Admins generally count redirect votes as keeps, despite the firther explanation: "A voter who votes "Redirect" usually does so in the belief that whilst the article's content is discardable, a redirect should exist to redirect readers who use that article title to a more complete, more general, or simply pre-existing article." Personally, I take that to be much more on the "delete" side of things, but I'm in a minority I think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I would hope—in a perhaps somewhat forlorn and futile manner—that any closing sysop would have the sense to read the redirect to mithril votes as delete and create redirect (another permissible vote), rather than keep. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - For the benefit of the sysop, that's essentially what my redirect vote meant... although, frankly, I'm not sure it much matters whether the history is kept or discarded, if the term is a redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:44, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Weak delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:31, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mithril or Galvorn. Salleman 00:08, 8 Jun 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. CDC (talk) 20:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sha Tin Government Secondary School Alumni Association

OK, all of you extreme inclusionists who think that every single school that has ever existed should have its own article, do you think there should be an article on every single school's alumni association and all of its officers? Why not an article on every PTA that has ever existed? Rick K 06:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this is basically "average person" level of coverage, nothing really to merge. 06:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. Not opposed to merge. Kappa 16:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Sha Tin Government Secondary School. This can be expressed in a third of the space with no information lost. Almafeta 06:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some of this information (but not nearly all) should be merged into Sha Tin Government Secondary School. I would point out that this is a newcomer and perhaps a friendly message left on his talk page could explain why his entries are being deleted. He seems to be working in good faith. DS1953 06:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've put something there. One advantage of Vfd rather than speedying good faith contributions is the ability to communicate with the contributor in question. Kappa 06:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. jni 07:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Sha Tin Government Secondary School. Cmon RickK, is this combative tone really necessary? Klonimus 10:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete both the non-notable school and the non-notable school association. Dunc|☺ 11:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Sha Tin Government Secondary School. -- Lochaber 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect for reasons above. 216.158.31.195 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Sha Tin Government Secondary School. Mgm|^(talk) 19:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Dunc. NeoJustin 02:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. The existence of this organization is some of the detail that belongs in the individual school articles. There's no reason every alumni association can't be a section in their respective school articles. Un focused 05:11, 4 Jun 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 19:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Goblin metal

Another metal "genre" page with almost no information. Aside from the fact that "Goblin metal" is nowhere recognized as a category of metal music, what little data is provided by the page is entirely incoherent and uninformative. OnwardToGolgotha 06:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, POV, and I'm a metalhead who hasn't heard of this kind of metal. --Idont Havaname 06:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and maybe even a speedy-deletion candidate for patent nonsense -- that hurt my brain to read. Almafeta 06:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Google hits are all irrelevant to the topic. Even if "goblin metal" exists outside the author's head, no one will miss this article much. Isomorphic 06:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax or neologism. --Bletch 16:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Also, irretrievably biased POV - even the title mayhaps? 216.158.31.195 17:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete imaginary music genres—Wahoofive (talk) 23:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Possibly redirect to troll metal. -Sean Curtin 02:29, Jun 7, 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 Seth (Stargate) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seth (Stargate SG-1)

This page is a duplicate of Seth (Stargate), and (Stargate) is the preferred suffix for articles relating to the fictional universe of Stargate. Tyler 06:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Seth (Stargate). As you said, duplicate page using a non-standard suffix. Almafeta 06:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to prevent recreation. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Seth (Stargate) as per above. -- Lochaber 13:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Mgm|^(talk) 19:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect 23skidoo 20:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep because "Seth (Stargate)" refers to the Goa'uld Seth, while "Seth (Stargate SG-1)" refers to the episode ABOUT Seth. There should be a distinction made on both pages. The (Stargate) suffix refers to general Stargate universe info, while the (Stargate SG-1) prefix refers to specific episodes.Splintercellguy 02:28, 6 Jun 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. Recreation of previously VFD'd content, per JamesTeterenko's comment below. CDC (talk) 20:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of taxi operators in Greater Toronto Area

Yellowikis is not a Wiki Foundation project but one of its objectives is to provide a wiki space for articles about commercial organisations that don't fit comfortably in Wikipedia. Please feel free to "dump" such articles into Yellowikis.--Payo 28 June 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic. Transwiki to Yellowikis. -- RHaworth 06:33, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Transwiki as indicated if possible, (since... is Yellowikis under Wikimedia's control?); else delete as non-notable/non-encyclopedic. That list probably changes a lot. --Idont Havaname 07:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly YelloWikis ain't a Wikimedia project but that don't prevent you cutting and pasting it! -- RHaworth 08:10, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic, wikipedia is not a directory. JamesBurns 09:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I don't see anything wrong with this list. How are taxi companies any less encyclopedic a part of the transport system than subway stations? An anon seems to be doing a lot of good work in this area and the external links allow for easy verification. - SimonP 14:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There's a lot of interesting history behind some cab companies and a list of them is a great first step toward future articles. This list is no less worthy than a list of city parks or schools. --NormanEinstein 15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, the irony. Rick K 04:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not yellowpages. --MarSch 15:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We've already got articles on some of them and they're equally important as subway stations and airline companies. Mgm|^(talk) 19:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising, not encyclopedic. Rick K 04:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not yellowpages. carmeld1 00:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Note that there was a similar article deleted in the past. See Votes for deletion/Taxi and Limo Operators in Toronto. I believe much of the content was moved to this page on the Toronto Wiki. -- JamesTeterenko 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A list of non-notable entities is not notable. --Death phoenix 14:44, 10 Jun 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 19:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Books For Crooks

First, John Duncer gets zero google hits. Second, there is no such thing as the "American Achievers Award", (there is an African-American Achievers Award, not the same thing). This anon has been going around creating stubs like John Duncer and American Achievers Award all in support of this hoax article. func (talk) 07:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is actual proof of the existence of these things, delete. Harro5 08:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Wikibofh 14:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Just to note, this article does not qualify for speedy deletion. While it may turn out to be nonsense, it is not patent nonsense. Denni ☯ 23:53, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Comment, this same anon, under several different IPs, has also been vandalising VH1 Classic, and has been creating joke articles like Hide the salami, (which has now been redirected). func(talk) 16:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- For those who were curious but afraid to click at work, Hide the salami redirects to Sexual slang. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Books for Crooks" gets no legit Google hits. Interestingly enough, there is such an organization though, calling itself Books Through Bars. Denni ☯ 23:51, 2005 Jun 3 (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 all of them to Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36 since the content has already been merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kim evoy, Pam glass and Shawn wilson

These articles have identical contents, except for the name of the school trustee in question. The incident itself is notable, but I don't think individual trustees behind it are, especially with articles like these. Merge into an article about the incident. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge, concur. Kappa 07:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge. The incident is notable, but the individuals involved are not. Please use the content to form an article on the incident itself. Harro5 08:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. R adiant _* 11:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Merge. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:27, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
- This info ~~should go~~ has been put on a page discussing the court case: Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:36, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Since the notable information has already been merged, per BD2412, these three can be deleted. Jonathunder 05:38, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Delete all. This information has been merged. JamesBurns 10:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, has been merged. Leanne 10:26, 9 Jun 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. sjorford →•← 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John huppenthal

This is a one sentence article on an Arizona state senator. It does not establish notability, and doesn't tell you anything other than: name, job, district. Harro5 08:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Poor capitalization in the title, but aren't state-level politicians inherently notable? --Scimitar 13:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep all state Senators. Inherently notable. Meelar (talk) 14:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
keep please and edit Yuckfoo 18:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but move to correct title. Even more notable as of late due to a failed recall effort due to local unhappiness. Wikibofh 20:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. All senators are notable. Falphin 19:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep""" local officals are important. Arizonaland 23:23, 8 Jun 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 - should be merged somewhere - SimonP 13:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Richter Hall

Delete or Merge. Not notable enough for its own article--this is a place in an already obscure web comic, The Class Menagerie --Krishva 08:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as obscure. Karol 08:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with DeMontfort University. Richter Hall is well known to the furry fandom, and is already featured in no less than three comics now. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DeMontfort University. - Gilgamesh 13:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Vote put up on VfD by user who (along with one or two others) are attempting to have deleted or speedily deleted every furry-related page on Wikipedia. Almafeta
Merge, along with DeMontfort University, and inserted as sections of The Class Menagerie article. These articles do not stand by itself strong enough to merit its own articles. Please note I have removed the personal attack made by the user Almafeta against the user Krishva. -- Grumpyhan 15:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please do not edit another user's comments. Almafeta 15:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Please do not assume others' intentions and jump to conclusions, either. Every furry-related page! - Grumpyhan 15:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please avoid making personal attacks. I'm out to make articles concise (which furry articles for the most part are not) and remove inappropriately obscure articles, regardless of topic. --Krishva 04:02, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge somewhere
Merge. If there's no standalone entry for, say, Robot Hell from Futurama, there doesn't need to be one for this.216.158.31.195 17:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The difference between this and that is that Robot Hell is only in Futurama, and not also in, say, The Simpsons. This is a topic shared across multiple story series. - Gilgamesh 17:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - The difference between this and that is that Futurama is arguably general pop culture, whereas the three story series you reference occupy a niche (webcomics) of a niche culture (furrydom). 216.158.31.195 18:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - So? Since when do niche interests of niche cultures not deserve due attention? - Gilgamesh 20:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Uhrm, because it's non-notable? -- Grumpyhan 05:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        But it is notable. - Gilgamesh 16:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        How? - Grumpyhan 04:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into I.s.o.. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:51, Jun 4, 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 - should be merged somewhere - SimonP 13:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

DeMontfort University

Delete or Merge. Fictional university in obscure web comic--not notable --Krishva 08:47, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to the real De Montfort University. Since the fictional university does not exist or have any influence outside of a not particularly famous comic, people who would look for it would look for the comic. Can probably lose the disambig on the top of De Montfort University article as well. Average Earthman 09:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect agreed --Doc (?) 12:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have DeMontfort University and Richter Hall merged, as three separate comics popular in the furry fandom (The Class Menagerie, i.s.o. and The Suburban Jungle) include them both as locations. If they are less notable separately, they are more centralized together. The name DeMontfort has no relation to the real university in England, and the names are coincidental. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Richter Hall. - Gilgamesh 13:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Vote put up on VfD by user who (along with one or two others) are attempting to have deleted or speedily deleted every furry-related page on Wikipedia. Almafeta 14:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge, along with Richter Hall, and inserted as sections of The Class Menagerie article. These articles do not stand by itself strong enough to merit its own articles. Please note I have removed the personal attack made by the user Almafeta against the user Krishva. -- Grumpyhan 15:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please do not edit another user's comments. Almafeta 15:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Then, please do not assume other users' intentions and jump to conclusions. Every furry-related page! - Grumpyhan 15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But what about i.s.o. which takes place at DeMontfort and Richter, and also The Suburban Jungle which has had chapters take place there as well? - Gilgamesh 15:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Then I would suggest redirecting the links of both locations in i.s.o. and The Suburban Jungle to sections in The Class Menagerie. - Grumpyhan 15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - But TCM is discontinued, and i.s.o. is active. All new canonical stories dealing with DeMontfort and Richter are in i.s.o. now. - Gilgamesh 16:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate personal attacks. I am not out to delete every furry related page on Wikipedia, I'm out to delete or merge pages for irrelevant or redundant topics. There is no reason not to merge this and Richter Hall with The Class Menagerie or one of the other comics these places appear in. Directing links to sections of an article is not exactly hard. --Krishva 04:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. If there's no standalone entry for, say, Robot Hell from Futurama, there doesn't need to be one for this.216.158.31.195 17:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The difference between this and that is that Robot Hell is only in Futurama, and not also in, say, The Simpsons. This is a topic shared across multiple story series. - Gilgamesh 17:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - The difference between this and that is that Futurama is arguably general pop culture, whereas the three story series you reference occupy a niche (webcomics) of a niche culture (furrydom). 216.158.31.195 18:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - So? Since when do niche interests of niche cultures not deserve due attention? - Gilgamesh 20:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 18:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into I.s.o. but redirect to De Montfort University. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. carmeld1 01:54, 5 Jun 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 - should be merged - SimonP 13:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nihil sine Deus

This is something for WikiQuotes Karol 08:53, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is also wrong, gramatically speaking. Transwik. R adiant _* 11:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the Hohenzolern family page. The page is basically a stub and needs wikification.216.158.31.195 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the family's page if we've got it. Otherwise delete. Mgm|^(talk) 19:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- There is one. A fairly thorough entry, too. I would suggest validating them, though, just to make sure the one guy didn't make this all up. 216.158.31.195 20:17, 3 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zig Zag (furry)

Delete. Somebody's personal character, also in obscure web comic. Not notable enough for its own article, possible vanity. --Krishva 08:55, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable anthromorphic furry mammal porn movie studio owner. — JIP | Talk 09:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Are all obscure fan groups as insistent on their importance as this one? "Malcolm Earle" gets 961 google hits, and the vast majority of them seem to be for the Jazz trombonist Malcolm Earle-Smith Average Earthman 10:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a furry fan by any means, and I couldn't give a toss about the vast majority of furry characters. Zig Zag is an exception. She was even prominently featured in Eric Schwarz's comic Sabrina Online, which is a very notable comic even outside the furry fandom. — JIP | Talk 10:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- “Max Black Rabbit” as Zig Zag’s author is commonly known, get 13500 google hits. --Perneseblue 11:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh keep this. Not my kind of thing, but not just someone's vanity project either.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Vote put up on VfD by user who (along with one or two others) are attempting to have deleted or speedily deleted every furry-related page on Wikipedia. Almafeta 14:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a furry fan, and the ever-goring quantity of fancruft in Wikipedia bothers me a lot, but honesty compels me to admit that I've heard of this character. Keep. -- Dominus 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not really down with the furries, but I'm not down with biased edits and VfDs either. While the character is fairly minor, my ignorance of the subculture may be biasing me. Her appearances in webcomics that I've heard of is in favor of it.216.158.31.195 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this too please Yuckfoo 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep because she looks like something off Furcadia. Which probably doesn't have an article. While we're on the subject, intergalactic weasel. Hedley 19:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable in furry fandom, don't see why this shouldn't have an article. Kaibabsquirrel 03:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable furry character. JamesBurns 04:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Falphin 19:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Furry cruft. SchmuckyTheCat 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Could be somebody's vanity article but you've also got to admit that Sabrina Online isn't exactly an 'obscure' webcomic. It would be preferable to merge this into a Sabrina Online article rather than maintain it seperately. -- Stiv 06:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that Sabrina Online isn't obscure. Calling it obscure seems like a sign of "I've never heard of it, so it's obscure" logic. But there is way too much information in this article to merge with Sabrina Online, seeing as that article has way less information on everyone else. — JIP | Talk 07:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 02:32, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Widely recognised character in furry subculture. Character’s has crossed over into art/stories of many other people, a rare occurrence outside Disney characters.--Perneseblue 11:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Equivlent to any other character page. Sabrina Online is I think on its seventh year running or so, and has, you know. READERS. Notable.
- The above Keep is made by user:Tznkai -- Grumpyhan 00:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Abstain Some of the votes for Keep seems to suggest she is a character which has a lot of fans among webcomic creators, hence crossovers. Sabrina Online appears to be more popular than an obscure comic, though. -- Grumpyhan 00:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep I'm admittedly a bit of a webcomics geek, and encountered Zig Zag in webcomics form about four years ago, so the character is familiar to me, so that does make me biased. (Of my 21 daily comics bookmarks, however, only three could be considered 'furry': Sabrina Online, Ozy & Millie (which I don't tend to count, personally) and The Class Menagerie.) However, Sabrina Online has a significant readership for a webcomic (or so it's link page suggests), as does the associated ZZ Studios fan fiction which features her as a main character, surprisingly enough (for fan fiction, anyway; 344 registered users in the discussion room). There's also fan-made radio play as well, apparently. (Weird-ish, that...) On the other side, "Max Blackrabbit" gets 553 Google hits. (I suspect many of the others in the 13,500 quoted above have sentences like 'A dwarf rabbit can be black, brown, white or gray, and grow to a max of six inches long.' or the like.) Still, I'd say more notable than a random Pokemon. --William McDuff 15:50, 12 Jun 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 19:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kate M Winter

Not notable. Thue | talk 09:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like another vanity article of a non-notable college student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, college student vanity. Given the number of people who have graduated from college, creating an article for all of them would seem rather excessive. Average Earthman 10:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as above. 216.158.31.195 16:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 17:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all of the above, also remove Birth entry from June 5 --Apjake 01:04, 6 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Tell me what she has done first??? Obviously nothing as reflected in the brevity of her entry I say delete it

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 speedied. —Xezbeth 19:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nelson Lin

Not notable. Thue | talk 09:06, 3 Jun 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 19:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Taylor julius hughes

Not notable. Thue | talk 09:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Eixo 09:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Karol 09:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. —tregoweth 09:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete because (and we need a reason as VfD is meant to be a reasoned debate rather than a democratic vote, so one reasoned vote to keep should outweigh 20 unreasoned deletes) is that he isn't a professional actor, and he isn't a professional skier. Amateur acting in local theatre and competing in minor amateur sports do not warrant an article, particularly if they are unverifiable, which these appear to be. Average Earthman 10:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. He's known in his community. woo. 216.158.31.195 16:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity bio. The talents will take him far part is said twice. Enough said. --Etacar11 17:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:48, 4 Jun 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 19:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Illichville

"Proposed city" it says. Proposed, yes, but as an artist's project rather than as a real place that will exist. The website pointed to (several times) in the external links talks of an already extant city linked to nearby similarly created villages. Once you remove Wiki-linked pages, it gets almost 250 google hits. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Proposed by who? If it was proposed by a notable architect, then it would be of interest and warrant an article. If it was proposed by a very rich man with an interest in architecture who might be the sort to actually put their plans into action (e.g. Prince Charles with his village), then it may be of interest. If you follow the external links then you find this is the brainchild of Robert Avidor. But who is Robert Avidor? He doesn't appear to have any note or influence that I can find from Google. Average Earthman
Delete. Crystal ball, etc. Rick K 04:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless notability of Avidor and/or others involved (if, indeed, there are any) is established. carmeld1 02:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:54, 2005 Jun 15 (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 19:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Religion of Gold and Mammon

Fancruft from non-notable online game (Googling results in only 769 Google hits. tregoweth 09:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete a micro-god for a micronation - total cruft --Doc (?) 12:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep no micro-god and no micronation. You can find the game by looking at the first link brought up by google, plus a link to the game is supllied in "External links". You can find more on the game at [3]. I see no reason to delete this page, and I have no idea why Doc glasgow has an interest in the religion of Gold and Mammon. --Technogiddo 13:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's 5th edit. Rick K 04:18, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
A fictional religion of a fictional nation from a game which doesn't appear notable (135 unique Google hits for Jottonia, and about 900 total hits [4]). Even if the game (Jottonia) deserved an article for itself, "Religion of Gold and Mammon" clearly does not in the least. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge if there is a proper place This link is Broken 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It seems to be a copy-paste job, with a bunch of headings that are completely blank and no wikification.216.158.31.195 16:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or at best if the game Jottonia achieves notability at some point, create an article for the game. --Tabor 18:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. Kel-nage 20:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:34, 6 Jun 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 19:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Barry

Delete until more information. There's a page on Navar. Karol 09:47, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Navar if the info isn't there. Not notable enough for his own article (yet). --Etacar11 17:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and I hope he jumps off a bridge. SchmuckyTheCat 20:48, 5 Jun 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 19:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

National "Say 'Hi' to Joe" Day

Non- or barely-existing "holiday"; "Say Hi to Joe Day" returns 20 Google hits. tregoweth 09:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete; vanity page and not notable. Do I get a Wikipedia article if I make up a new holiday, too? Russ Blau (talk) 10:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, google hits indicate it is not notable. Thue | talk 10:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and vanity. I could start a "International have hot, passionate sex with User:JIP day" but that wouldn't make it notable, or even work, for that matter. — JIP | Talk 10:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable (but I will say hi to Joe). -- BD2412 ^talk 13:23, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete. Goodbye, Joe. No Account
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:51, 4 Jun 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 19:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Badass Game

Looks like vanity article about non-notable "game." tregoweth 09:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - It was created and editd by a single user, possibly in effort advertise the game. —Kjammer 11:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Referenced in an Eyedea song (unsigned edit by 66.9.126.26))
Keep - Refers to actual unsolved problem in game theory. Agree with user on discussion page that the theory section must be cleaned up. Perhaps a language warning as well? User:DiceDiceBaby
- User ID created today. Rick K 04:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete It doesn't even qualify as a game. --Xcali 16:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Way to reference my (yes, I take ownership of it) Eyedea article... but I'm not so sure you're right about him referencing it. Which song? My vote is conditional on this statement by the unsigned user being true and on the theory section being cleaned up. The amateur graphics don't help. Xcali is wrong, though, it does qualify as a game - not a board game or video game, but a game theory exercise, like the Prisoner's Dilemma.216.158.31.195 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete unless references are given to appropriate peer-reviewed journals, or atleast somebody with a proper academic post is revealed to behind the experiment, and with the intention of publishing it somewhere. It hardly seems to be akin to Axelrod and Hamilton. Dunc|☺ 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In its current form, delete as original research. --Tabor 18:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Really interesting, but would need massive rewrite 130.58.218.6 18:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sock puppet limit has been reached. Rick K 04:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable & original research. JamesBurns 04:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey everybody. I'm really sorry. I just wanted to help out and write some articles for the magazine about comedy and music and things I found interesting. I'm sorry I pissed everybody off and I promise to never come back.
Keep maybe it's non-notable but the game looks really interesting! Grue 13:10, 5 Jun 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 19:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Vail

Probably not notable. The book is published by a vanity press, so it doesn't count towards notability. I find it a bit suspicious that all the 5 reviews at amazon have given the book 5/5 stars. Thue | talk 10:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN. Book is not in the Library of Congress or the British Library. Only significant google hits appear to be references to blog entries. David | Talk 14:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utter dreck and vanity. His blog is the same; self-involved garbage. 216.158.31.195 16:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. Nice of him to give himself 5/5 on Amazon. --Etacar11 18:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:53, 4 Jun 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 speedied. —Xezbeth 19:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Segall

I originally tagged this for speedy deletion as "little or no content", but the tag was removed. Segall gets 15 hits on Google, and none of them appear to establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy, period. Entire article is "Jordan Segall is a noted University of Chicago scholar". The creator can't even be bothered to tell us in which field - but we have to reasearch it to discuss notability. If he is notable let someone else create a proper article later! --Doc (?) 12:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Jordan Segal" + Chicago gets 5 google hits (none relevant), ergo this "scholar" is not "noted". -- BD2412 ^talk 13:02, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Speedy delete for lack of content. Also this google search [5] has one relevant link (a massive list of signatures). He's completely unnotable. --Scimitar 14:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Does not destinguish how he is notable
Delete. I'm normally rather keen on turning stub articles on tenured academics and top researchers into proper articles, but searching the University of Chicago website finds a strong suggestion that a Mr Jordan Dentler Segall is an undergraduate, and therefore not worth an article [6]. Average Earthman 14:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I UC-Hyde Park searched him, and he comes up as both staff and student. Though there's a slight possibility that he's a remarkable grad student with significant publications... there's a better chance that he's not.216.158.31.195 16:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. Not to mention lack of content. --Etacar11 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, lack of content, context and relevant google hits. Noted scholars have a web presence in this era. Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
This article qualifies for speedy deletion following article criterion 1. So done. Denni ☯ 03:07, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Summit Raj Tuladhar

not notable. Nateji77 12:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Telecoms companies tend to have large numbers of engineers. The article does not suggest how this one has exceeded the norm. Average Earthman 14:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. He has a nifty pic, but that's about it. 216.158.31.195 16:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nice pic, but nn. Better for a user page. --Etacar11 19:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:54, 4 Jun 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Farabaugh

nonsense

No need to waste our time > Speedied. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 3 Jun 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 deleted. CDC (talk) 21:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MERLABYTE

Pure nonsense DrTorstenHenning 14:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DrTorstenHenning --Penguin020 14:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Written by vandal JARMAN4069--Henrygb 14:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please delete it. The vandal has also created links to this nonsense from other random articles.
Delete, patent nonsense. --Wtshymanski 17:15, 3 Jun 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 already merge/redirected to Femme fatale. ===Femme Fatale (Powerpuff Girls)=== Delete. This isn't a principal character in the animated series, The Powerpuff Girls. Therefore, this article has no value to stand as its own separate article. Besides, I have already moved the information to the article entitled "Femme fatale". Marcus2, 14:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marcus2's actions leave no other option than Keep, for GFDL compliance. Deletion is not the final step in article merger. Uncle G 02:36, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- Err, can't we just redirect it? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, and we should indeed redirect this. See also WP:FICT. -- Jonel 04:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Agree with Jonel, redirect. Rick K 04:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes. Redirecting is the final step article merger. I was making the point that we now may not delete it. Uncle G 14:46, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

42 Disambiguous

Has only one use other than the year, and the year has a link to it saying "Alternate uses: see 42 Disambiguous". Why can't we just have the header say "Alternate use: 42 (number)" and then have this redundant article deleted?? Georgia guy 14:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and on the 42 page use the Number_42 redirect to 42 (number). (This is what is done on the 41, 40, 39, ... pages, so the revision would be consistent.) :) — RJH 14:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ... or simply revert the edits by Jtkiefer to these versions, which use the {{otheruses-number}} template, as I have just done. Uncle G 02:47, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Neutral I did this originally in the hope that there would me more examples of 42 that could be added and linked to by the disambiguous page (and yes I'm sure there are other uses) though I understand why it may be unneccessary so either way is ok with me. Jtkiefer 21:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are other uses — Please describe one for us. Uncle G 02:47, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Del; besides the incorrect, and thereby misleading and confusing title, the precedent cited by RJHall is sound. --Jerzy·t 01:35, 9 Jun 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 19:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tim McConnell

Non-notable, unverifiable, and/or prank. Zero hits for full name, All hits for "Tim McConnell" seem to be other people. No IMDb listing. Niteowlneils 15:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I note he's only 16, yet he is listed as a philosopher. If he is notable, someone else will come along and create a page about his acting career. Until then, this looks like a contentless advertisement. Almafeta 15:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for all the reasons above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I trust I don't even have to say why. 216.158.31.195 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:56, 4 Jun 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. Juppiter 13:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scott Sonne

Royal vanity. ;) - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Oliver Keenan 15:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

1988? Kid should go back to being a scriptkiddy. delete'. 216.158.31.195 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. {{cleanup-importance}} is not an entitlement to add more vanity. jni 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If he was reading that well that early, he would have had a better time writing his "symphony's". Contentless advertisement. Almafeta 17:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Come on, this is so much a speedy as patent nonsense. sjorford →•← 22:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The original version only made the claim about the toaster strudel invention; borderline patent nonsense, although the current version surely is. We really need a speedy criterion for crap like this. (Delete, speedily if possible.) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 23:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This guy is awesome. He was born in 1988 but wrote a movie that was released in 1977. Delete. Rick K 04:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Some stupid kid who thinks wikipedia is his own personal plaything Juppiter 01:26, 7 Jun 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 19:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Cox

Nominated for deletion due to ?vanity, ?below the bar of notability. Oliver Keenan 15:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Delete. 216.158.31.195 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 17:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete obviously. DS1953 19:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete personal attack. JamesBurns 04:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Definately delete. No question about it. Pufferfish101 22:04, 5 Jun 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 20:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bungwa

Neologism. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Dominus 16:07, 3 Jun 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 20:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It must be retained!!! All Hong Kong People know the meaning of "Jer Jer". If you don't believe, you can come to HK and shout "Jer Jer" loudly in the city. Then you will see what happen!

"JJ" is the short form of "Jer Jer", just like United Kingdom(UK)

Jjable

Wiktionary material at best, but probably just a single user's vanity page of sorts — Google finds just 39 hits, half of them unrelated garbage (and the rest in Chinese). Jpatokal 15:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Forum slang is generally unencyclopedic, and this is a prime example. --Scimitar 16:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. This word is being very popular in hk internet.In Hkgolden Forum,everyone knows "JJ" means. 219.78.108.121 15:38, 2005 Jun 3 (according to edit history. Uncle G 02:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC))
Yes, It's one of the Hong Kong Culture. 60.240.187.234 15:47, 2005 Jun 3
If 'pwn' can be a wiki entry, so can jjable. keep. 216.158.31.195 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
why is this justified by number of occurances in google ? Can you give a figure for how much appears in google before ok to be put in wiki? 50? 100? 200? 1000? And "the rest in chinese", did u try to understand what those chinese pages means before making your statement ? Keep too.. by GILL2O+ 219.78.76.58 16:57, 2005 Jun 3 (according to edit history. Uncle G 02:56, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC))
- Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia, doesn't have a Google bar for words, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary, the dictionary, has criteria for inclusion that have to be met, which this purported word does not meet based upon what Google returns. Proper quotations, demonstrating the word in actual independent use, preferably in printed sources, are the royal road to satisfying those criteria. Uncle G 03:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
& It'd be nice if the other helpful posters would sign their comments. But good point, Gill. If Singlish can be in wikipedia, this should be, too. 216.158.31.195 17:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Singlish isn't in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has an encyclopaedia article about Singlish. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 03:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary, at best. --Tabor 18:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Gets 14 unique Google hits. For comparison, "pwn" gets well over a million. --Carnildo 21:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a word, so no transwiki. No person/concept/place/thing/event — nothing whatever — for an encyclopaedia article by this title. Delete. Uncle G 03:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Sock puppet limit has been reached. Delete. Rick K 04:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete This "word" is just one of the many shibboleths used in the chat-forum HKGolden, and has no validity anywhere else -- yes, I am from Hong Kong and read Chinese. There is no point transfering it to Wiktionary unless there is evidence that this "word" catches on.Roderick
Note: Above is actually 221.126.96.55 (talk · contributions)
I think it is a kind of subculture, so why don't we include this in Wikipedia? It is not the matter of 'how many Google hits it gets'. So keep it.Fatoil2000 — (Fatoil2000's 9th edit.)
- Please add comments to the bottom of the discussion. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 18:50, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- If there is a subculture here, its name is not "jjable" and this article doesn't contain anything whatever about it. Uncle G 15:38, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Delete Please don't try to mislead others. It's not popuplar in Hong Kong. Only used by people in "ONE" forum. (I'm one of the active users of that forum)
- Per this, change vote to Delete. 216.158.31.195 18:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 18:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary Celestianpower 18:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Strongly agree to delete an UNPOPULAR word in a worldwide Web... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.67.111 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2005 Jun 8
Delete This article shames Hong Kong People!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.67.111 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2005 Jun 8
Delete The word is not popuplar in Hong Kong Internet community. Nobody use the word but the forum's users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchstick.jazz (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2005 Jun 9
Delete. It's not common in Hong Kong. I wonder why this word is shown in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.237.140.253 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2005 Jun 9
Delete. The article does not clearly stating the fact in Hong Kong about the usage of slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.67.111 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 2005 Jun 10
Keep. Shounldn't an Encyclopedia keep as more items as possible? I think its quite popular in hk. Of course, it may not be well-known by girls. Anyway, this word is funny when the time you can get the meaning. It's a pity to detele this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.173.253 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2005 Jun 12

DO NOT DELETE IT!!!! This term is well known in Hong Kong, There is 700, 000 people using the Internet service in Hong Kong. According to a survey in 1998. 78% of them know what is "JJ-able". In addition, HKGOLDEN FORUM has over 50000 members. Won't you give a chance to this slang word?

Comment Although I'm neutral to this matter, it's no good giving false (or fake) statistics. The term appears in this one or two years. I didn't see any research about popularity of this word.
Delete - neologism. --FCYTravis 07:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - anon user is removing delete votes. --FCYTravis 07:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've restored a few that you've missed. The anonymous user has also deleted other unsigned delete votes from other anonymous users. I've restored as many of them as I can find, too. Uncle G 22:08, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete it!This word is useless outside HongKong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.73.176 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2005 Jun 9
Delete! Such so-called "slang" is only used by minority in a forum (less than 100 people from observation). It is not a well-known word to be considered as a slang. - Drazla 11:00, 9 Jun 2005 (GMT +8) Actually User:210.245.204.11 03:22, 2005 Jun 9
Delete! It's a newly invented slang only used in a hong kong based forum, and google results show how it's extremely rarely used in hong kong. Wiki has already put its resource to explain this term here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang), no extra resource should be spent.--Zen, Hong Kong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.202.146 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2005 Jun 7

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 19:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hooting Yard

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should stay, as it is populer website. Albeit HUMOUR! — (Unsigned comment by Djarra; user's 49th edit.)
- Your spelling is as poor on the VfD as it is on the entry. Delete216.158.31.195 16:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 21:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As noteable as 'Roomies' of not more so... — (Unsigned comment by Djarra; user's 51st edit.)
Not an encyclopedia article, spam/promotional, not notable (the site doesn't even have an Alexa rank, and there is exactly one known site that links to it [7]). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, self-promotional, near-nonsense. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:59, 4 Jun 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 19:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Marcos A. Cappa

Previously tagged as speedy, claiming to be vanity. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur. delete.216.158.31.195 16:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN. Couldn't find anything relevant on Google. (of course, my Spanish is way out of practice) --Etacar11 23:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete It looks like a vanity page to me. He's non notable, in any case. -GamblinMonkey 13:33, 10 Jun 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 19:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

John Duncer

The onward link Books For Crooks is already VfD'd and the nomination alleges that Mr.Duncer is a ficitional person. Acordingly I have VfD'd this article, so that a verify check can be carried out by those more knowledgable than I Simon Cursitor 15:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I neglected to place this on VfD last night, along with Books For Crooks. func (talk) 16:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please delete. 216.158.31.195 18:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:00, 4 Jun 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 19:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fetus death kill

Non-notable vanity page Dominus 16:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'm suspecting hoax, actually, but either way, it doesn't belong. --Xcali 16:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If they're going to tour with Slipknot that would probably make them notable, but on this one, I'm going with "trust yet verify". Delete unless proven real. Meelar (talk) 16:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Your search - "Fetus death kill" - did not match any documents." Not notable, if it exists at all. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:37, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete. "The band suffered a scandal after Dirk was found to have owned a CD from the shitty band Chevelle." I don't play those games.216.158.31.195 16:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Skating close to grounds for speedy, especially with zero Google hits. Delete Denni ☯ 03:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, it's funny. Grue 13:15, 5 Jun 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 20:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

White Shadows

Not mentioned as a 2nd X&Y single in any credible news source. Fix You is the 2nd single [8][9]--Madchester 16:02, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Delete. This track is already noted in the album article, the only information added (that it was released as the second single) appears suspect. --Tabor 18:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
redirect this please Yuckfoo 19:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:01, 4 Jun 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 copyvio, will be dealt with accordingly. —Xezbeth 19:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hansung Airlines

Copyright violation (http://www.globalsources.com/TNTLIST/2005/04/05/Trav_SK_budget_June.HTM) Cadr 16:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No action here. It is being handled on WP:CP. --Tabor 18:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 05:02, 4 Jun 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 19:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Marc L'Heureux

200 odd hits on Google but none seem relevant, seems like hoax. And the creator IP has vandalized other pages. --Etacar11 16:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable, likely prank. -- Infrogmation 17:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, maybe send to BJAODN. --Sn0wflake 23:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity hoax. JamesBurns 05:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete whoever this marc l'heureux is hasn't complained about it. the IP address might be the same as others because of a server. if it is the same person, or mr. l'heureux complains, then delete it because it will then be obvious that it is a fake.
- (unsigned comment by User:12.75.242.223)
Don't Deleteyou don't know that this is a false or a prank. there could have been a marc l'heureux.
- (unsigned comment by User:64.12.116.200)
  - Delete It doesn't matter if we don't know. Speculation doesn't have much place in an encyclopedia.
Don't DeleteHe is my hero, he saved my family from debt. Please don't delete this article...
Delete I'm Sorry. I'm Probably the only one in my computer programming class that actually takes Wikipedia Seriously. Soemone in the class probably did it. I've asked before for the site to not block the schools IP address, because i constantly refer to it and update articles on electricity and computing. Again, I'm Very SorryMarc L'Heureux 8:40, 10 Jun 2005 (EST)
Don't Delete There must be a Marc L'Heureux. He saved my life several times, even after his death. A truly great human being.
- (unsigned comment by 69.142.221.168, their only edit)

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. JeremyA 05:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Derek Riordan

Appears to be a hoax; Googling "David Riordan" +Hibernian (his supposed football team) gets 2 hits, apparently unrelated. Created by a user whose other edits were all vandalism. Can someone verify this guy actually exists? Meelar (talk) 16:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Not a hoax. The Hibernian Football Club web site [10] lists him as the top scorer. (See left column on linked page, "2004/05 Scorers"). Notability is another question, and I have no opinion on that. --Tabor 18:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment 2 If you googled "David Riordan" instead of "Derek Riordan", perhaps that was the problem? --Tabor 18:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ah...ahem...yes, yes it was. Move along now, nothing to see here. Nomination withdrawn, changing my vote to keep. In my defense, the rest of the anon's contributions were blatant vandalism. Meelar (talk) 21:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable professional footballer. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Forbsey 23:17, 7 Jun 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. JeremyA 13:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red Herring Artists

I am highly sceptical of this entry. The author has no other edits, and his only comments on the Talk page are highly defensive. Also, the grammar, capitalisation, and punctuation throughout the article are substandard; at the very least, it has to be copyread and wikified. In addition, he has left the bottom two sections blank for the last three months. It seems to be promotional, and I only find 28 Google hits for it (not enough to substantiate it being "regularly the subject of academic papers on art history and the history of design"). Also, the entire entry has been plagiarised from the About.com topic about this artists' collective. 216.158.31.195 16:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Well, actually, the About.com article is the Wikipedia article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That too. 216.158.31.195 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It is? All Google gives for the first sentence of the article is a Wikipedia mirror (answers.com). Either way, only 28 Google results for "Red Herring Artists", and none for "Red Herring Artist Group" -> delete. --Idont Havaname 18:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - My bad. You're right - it's not even about.com, it's answers.com. 216.158.31.195 18:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - try google '"red herring" art' returns 214,000 of which the first relevant entry is 11th - "red herring studios" gives 97 results - "red herring artist group" is not a term that applies or is used in reference to them. DavidP 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Remove unverifiable assertions (e.g. prizes allegedly won by artists who are not named, quoted opinion without source), condense into a sentence or two, and merge into Hove. --Tabor 19:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- assertions have been verified DavidP 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't appear to have satisfied any of the criteria for deletion under the deletion policy guidlines. it does not infringe any copyright, contains no useless directs or schemes gone awry and is not a source text nor dictionary definition. Perhaps you could consider it a vanity page - but if that were the case surely the author would have mentioned himself. (yes you've guessed - I was the original author, and I gain no benefit at all from the page). clearly the page has caused some concern and it is right to flag it up for consideration. in its defence I would like to say that it doesn't misrepresent anybody nor conflict with anybody elses interest. perhaps it deserves to be considered for cleanup or articles needing attention. But to delete it on the basis of its popularity or the number of hits it has had / google search results would surely endanger every page in wikipedia that wasn't of mainstream interest. A point of information for those not familiar with them, the Booker Prize is the most prestigious british literary prize, and the Turner Prize is the most prestigious british art award, i mention this because it might reflect on wether the subject of the page is 'notable' - I have remedied the lack of name or reference to the turner prize nominee.

Regarding 216.158.31.195's assertion that the page was plagiarised, that really is grasping at straws. It was not. I am sure that 216.158.31.195 (a username that redirects to Jasonglchu) is, as an undergradtuate, aware that academic papers are seldom published on the web and so will have little effect on their google presence. My apologies if this reply is too defensive or if my grammar is poor. ->Keep

DavidP 00:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate and share your concern that this page and your doubts about it are judged fairly and by as many people as possible user 216.158.31.195. why then did you delete the link (without explanation) from the red herring disambiguation page? Surely that is not very good form, it almost seems that you have decided that your decision is final. Or would you prefer that others dont stumble across this voting page who might have an interest in Red Herring but only those from the VFD page.

DavidP 00:48, 17 Jun 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. JeremyA 13:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Permian High School

No notability demonstrated Shoaler 17:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The school was featured in a sports movie called Friday Night Lights, or something like that; apparently, they're a very highly-ranked high school football program. No vote. Meelar (talk) 18:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Meelar is right. In fact, given the feature-film status of Permian, I'm very surprised that the article isn't larger. I'm not a football guy, but I watched Friday Night Lights on the way home from China. Keep as a stub, and maybe think about making it a contribution/project thingie. 216.158.31.195 18:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as the location of the notable book (and later movie) FNL. Ben-w 18:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 18:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep and expand this is a notable school featured in a film Yuckfoo 18:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question. Is there anything to say about the school that is not covered by Friday Night Lights? Is it notable outside of the book/film? To give a different example, a number of people were featured in the documentary film Hands on a Hard Body, who would not be notable except for their appearance in the film. In such a case I can see having an article about the film that mentions them, but not separate articles for each person, because their notability is restricted to appearance in that film and can be adequately addressed in that context. --Tabor 19:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- - Apologies to Tabor here; I inadvertently did a mouse drag and inserted a comment by me into his edit (sounds weird, but it's true) I said: "There really is little point listing this kind of school for deletion when perfectly normal junior schools are routinely saved without the benefit of print, silver or technicolor." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There isn't really a good answer to your question; there's a lot of controversy over whether individual high schools are notable enough to get articles independently. See Wikipedia:Schools for more. Meelar (talk) 19:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Although its not much of a stub, it does (through the reference to the "winningest football team") identify the school sufficiently, and for the reasons noted above the school has notability (if that were required for a school). DS1953 19:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep any non-fictional school upon which a movie is based. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:25, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Keep. I think this one's pretty clear; a movie and an Olympic silver medalist posted within a day of creation. Un focused 21:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think this is one we can all agree on. There's the book and the movie in which the coach is played by Lara Croft's former squeeze, Billy Bob Thornton. It's picked up three 2005 award nominations, and the 2004 silver medalist Toby Stevenson. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article has an notably strong BEEFSTEW potential, give it time to allow for organic growth. --Bahn Mi 01:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:AN/I. This is a suspected sock of User:GRider, who is banned from VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keeo, notable. Neutrality^talk 02:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to shock everybody by voting keep. Notable school. Rick K 04:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
It could do with a bit of (non-waffling) expansion, but its not every school that is featured in a best selling book that has a notable film made about it, nor every school the produces an Olympic silver medalist. Keep. Thryduulf 07:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is an example of the rare encyclopedically notable secondary school. You actually can distinguish this school from thousands of other similar schools, and there are more interesting things to report about it than the school colors. Quale 09:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - notable American Football team with a school attached. (School National Champions in 1972 and 1989). I may disagree with their priorities, but given that we'll write articles on every minor sportsperson, a team that attracts five figure crowds is notable. Average Earthman 16:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep, obviously. Placing school articles on VfD 4 minutes after creation is counter-productive. —RaD Man (talk) 16:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Wow, you're right! It was listed for deletion four minutes after being created. This anti-school campaign is becoming very silly, and it has to be said, having a negligible effect, or possibly a large one in the direction opposite to that intended. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Wow, heaven forbid that people who think that crap is crap should want to list it for deletion!!!!! Especially since, at the time of listing, all it said was, "ermian High School has the winningest team in texas high school history.". Rick K 21:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)]
  - Clearly the nominator here failed to do minimal research. This is not the way to perform cleanup or RC. The fact that since April 22nd some seventy school articles have been listed for deletion and their discussions all closed without deletion, and a further twenty deletion listings that have not yet been closed also seem to be headed for a non-delete result, also suggests to me that those nominating those ninety schools for deletion in the space of six weeks are failing to do proper research, failing to consider alternatives before going to VfD, and failing to judge the mood of Wikipedia on the matter of schools. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. High school from Texas with notable football team subject of book and feature film. Besides, they take their high school football very seriously in Texas. Capitalistroadster 06:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable school User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 07:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This school has been featured in a movie, and has a fairly long list of notable alumni. I think that establishes notability, whether or not one thinks highs schools are notable par se. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Obvious bad-faith nomination of very notable institution. Censure nominator. Centauri 08:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Odessa, Texas and delete - Skysmith 09:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - On a side note, it makes me really feel as though wikipedia is getting its job done - from the first "winningest football team" entry to the current brief, but encyclopaedic, entry, the article's really evolved because of the spotlight cast on it by VfD. Pretty neat. 216.158.31.195 18:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I think I agree, but I'd rather see Wikipedia get to the point where admins on cleanup use Google more so we don't end up with an article on VfD in the first place. This article is obviously not one that Wikipedia would delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. I still get the warm and fuzzies from it though. 216.158.31.195 19:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - They wouldn't have had the chance with this one, it was on VfD within four minutes. But I agree with you, people should do a quick Google before VfDing to catch the articles that are just badly written. Average Earthman 06:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Finally, a notable school. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A notable school. I do not see the harm in high school articles, provided that they are not 'fluff' and adhere to NPOV. (talk)

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 19:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

John Chu

non-notable; I don't think it's vanity, but it could be promotion. 216.158.31.195 17:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:05, 4 Jun 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. CDC (talk) 21:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Morgan Chu

Non-notable; He's a Nobel Prize-winner's brother, but I don't think that says anything about himself. 216.158.31.195 17:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. His notability is not for being someone's brother - that is interesting trivia - but in his own right. He is a well known and well respected lawyer in Los Angeles; the entry is encyclopedic. (I have no connection with him or his firm.) -EDM 18:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All right. Seems reasonable to me. I'd like to know more about his landmark cases, but I'll change the VfD back to a stub. 216.158.31.195 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- NB 216... removed the vfd tag. Dunc|☺ 18:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be notable lawyer. Capitalistroadster 06:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable lawyer. —Lowellian (talk) 13:17, Jun 5, 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 19:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Supyo

Advertisement for a website. Article doesn't establish why this belongs in the encyclopedia (if it does, so does my LiveJournal). Kelly Martin 17:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I agree entirely. 216.158.31.195 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete promotion/vanity. "not the author of this article"...you protest too much. --Etacar11 23:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 05:07, 4 Jun 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. CDC (talk) 20:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Little Heath School

"Little Heath School is a comprehensive school in Tilehurst, Berkshire.". No demonstration of notability, therefore delete. Dunc|☺ 17:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep please and see wikipedia:schools Yuckfoo 18:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- WP:SCH is neither policy nor a guideline, but a discussion page. Delete, not notable. Rick K 04:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I did take a look at Wikipedia:Schools. Interestingly, it says: These articles should have a good amount of verifiable information, with a format agreed upon at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. A one sentence stub does not help anyone. --Tabor 19:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Schools passage quoted by Tabor. --Scimitar 20:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Tilehurst (or a local school district article, if one exists) per above passage. Or, if it's expanded significantly before end of VfD, keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article is content-free. --Carnildo 23:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep for preference or else merge to the Local Education Authority (LEA), West Berkshire, per WP:SCH. A LEA in the English and Welsh education systems is the equivalent of a US school district or education department. (changed vote) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep yet disambiguate. There are at least three schools by this name: one in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire [11], Reading, Berkshire [12] and another in Romford, Essex. [13] --Bahn Mi 00:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:AN/I. This is a suspected sock of User:GRider, who is banned from VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:02, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless notability can be shown. Denni ☯ 03:15, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep per logic of this comment: comment re: tolerance of trivial articles on VfD. User:Icairns clearly qualifies as a "good contributor" here, we should "relax and accomodate" him. --Un focused 05:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge to (LEA)and create a DAB. The valid link would be to this school in the (LEA) article. Vegaswikian 06:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per what Unfocused said -CunningLinguist 06:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep LHS is notable. As per previous comments above Ian Cairns 08:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Tilehurst. Only of local interest, so put the short bit of information where it's useful rather than separating it from the rest of the suburb's details by a click. Average Earthman 16:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep unless non-notability can be demonstrated. —RaD Man (talk) 16:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, useless. Grue 13:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless. Gamaliel 15:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a lot less offputting for someone to edit this article rather than create a new one from scratch.Celestianpower 16:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not another one. Oliver Chettle 18:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Surely WP:SCH supporters should vote merge. RickK 23:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - personal attacks struck out. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't have a problem with anyone merging this article but I don't advocate it either. It's a perfectly good stub. WP:SCH recommends nominators merge rather than vfd. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No evidence of non-notability, therefore keep. --Centauri 04:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Tilehurst and delete - Skysmith 09:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No evidence of notability, therefore Merge any worthwhile content, but definitely Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 8 Jun 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. CDC (talk) 21:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Bulmershe School

The claim to fame of this comprehensive school is that it has a headmaster. Dunc|☺ 17:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a stub article - hence it does not have much information. Is it Wikipedia policy to delete stub articles? Ian Cairns 18:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As noted in the entry above, per Wikipedia:Schools:

A one sentence stub does not help anyone.

Do not unmerge or split out school stubs, unless you simultaneously expand the school article with verifiable information, so that it's no longer a stub.

Short, uninformative school articles may be merged by someone being bold. The relevant articles should generally not be unmerged unless expanded.

--Tabor 19:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That page has no authority. It is merely a discussion page set up by a deletionist. Oliver Chettle 18:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

keep please it is a valid stub so allow for organic growth Yuckfoo 18:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with Woodley or a local school district article if one exists. If it expands significantly before end of VfD, keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the appropriate geographic article to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 23:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is clearly somewhat more than a mere one-sentence stub. If merged, its LEA is Wokingham. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's been expanded significantly since nomination. Unfocused 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - BTW, thanks for the work expanding it, Yuckfoo! --Un focused 00:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks, I didn't check to see if it had been expanded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above - Ian Cairns 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep expanded version is coming along nicely. --Un focused 00:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, all school articles have vast potential for expansion and this one is no different. --Bahn Mi 00:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:AN/I. This is a suspected sock of User:GRider, who is banned from VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as expanded. Vegaswikian 06:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per what others have said -CunningLinguist 06:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per the general consensus. —RaD Man (talk) 16:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, very few schools have potential for expansion to anything meaningful. Rick K 21:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How is it special as compared to any other school? No evidence of notability demonstrated. —Lowellian (talk) 13:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep That is irrelevant. All schools should be kept. Oliver Chettle 18:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. WP:SCH DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Verifable, encyclopedic institution. VFD is not cleanup. Keep. --Centauri 04:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Woodley and delete - Skysmith 09:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Woodley and delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The Local Education Authority is Wokingham, so it's probably better to merge there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Relevant. --Ian Pitchford 19:49, 12 Jun 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 20:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gordonism

Someone's made up religion. Not notable, haven't seen any verifiable sources on it. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 18:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I'd vote for it to stay, but the presence of a personal email account address on the page leads me to believe that it's just for the purposes of proselytisation. Needs verification and a POV re-do. 216.158.31.195 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable. Writings consist of "a book not published anywhere". The article notes that there are few adherents and, "[t]he church was officially founded in 1990, but since then, has barely left outside the family." Not notable. --Tabor 19:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) (amend comments to include "original research" as another reason.) --Tabor 19:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I could find no Gordon Aarness on Google. Even if this is true, the personally held beliefs of a few people do not just an entry in an encylcopedia. 19:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable and unverifiable, ergo opens the door for Tomism, Dickism, and Harryism. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:22, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:08, 4 Jun 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 19:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Liberal landslide

The full text of this article is "The results of various elections have been popularly described as a Liberal landslide when a party of that name won decisively, that is a Landslide victory. These include:" (followed by a list). This does not add in any signficant way to Landslide victory -- it only compiles a list of landlside won by parties wwith "Liberal" in their names. Note that "Liberal parties" do not necessarily have anything in common -- they include two disparate parties in the UK, the conservative Liberal Party of Australia, the conservative British Columbia Liberal Party, and the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Delete. Ground Zero 18:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with ground Zero. Meelar (talk) 18:55, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps some way could be found of incorporating the list with List of liberal parties, where the debate on what belongs in a list of liberal parties and what they have in common has taken place. --Tabor 19:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless list. --Carnildo 21:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge into the list on landslide victory. - SimonP 21:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
delete not a worthwhile article. Mozzerati 17:52, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bogworld

Listed on speedy for vandalism by User:-Ril-, but vanity is not a speedy criteria. Listed here by me, but no vote. Article is about a webcomic that claims to be one of the oldest in the world, going back to the late 80s. Meelar (talk) 18:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

No vote. I echo your sentiments. If the site and article can be validated as to their claims, it'd be an interesting article to see develop. But... since the early '80s? That really seems far-fetched to me. Did we even have the possibility for high-res graphics back then? Fishy... 216.158.31.195 19:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete, in the early 80s the Internet was reserved for companies and contained only text data. No way a webcomic was possible back then. Mgm|^(talk) 19:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. I change to a strong delete for vanity and just ineptness. 216.158.31.195 20:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Anything of the sort from the late 80's / early 90's is most likely to have appeared or been mentioned on Usenet. Didn't find anything relevant at Google groups. (Note: I disagree with the assessment about Internet transmission of images at the time; technophiles of a certain age will have memories of UUencode/UUdecode). Alexa check of www.bogworld.com shows "not in top 100,000 sites". --Tabor 20:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So maybe it was possible. But I doubt company bosses would allow image transmissions over the internet for personal use, right? Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't know where you get the idea that the Internet was exclusively the province of private companies in those years. The backbone was run by universities under grant of the NSF--university faculty, staff, and students were much more prolific users of the medium. And yes, people used it for all sorts of questionable things. --Tabor 02:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep But re write. Bogworld was very early net art, and should be represented.
A website that we are told existed since the "late 80s", thus pre-dating the invention of the World Wide Web in 1990 by several years. Delete. Uncle G 03:30, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~~~ 17:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete "the web", as in the work from CERN, didn't exist in the 1980s. Mozzerati 18:07, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 19:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

.38 S&W

Minimal information, no progress since first created several months ago GraemeLeggett 19:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see either of those objections as reason for deletion. - Mustafaa 19:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and mark as {{weapon-stub}}. --Tabor 20:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Valid stub. Marked as such. Wikibofh 20:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not a reason for deletion. As previously stated, a valid stub. K1Bond007 05:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable weapon. Capitalistroadster 06:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a weapon, its just the cartidge.GraemeLeggett 09:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Eventually we should aim to cover all cartridges possible, at least as briefly as here. Oneliner 15:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks like a fine stub to me.--Herrhav0k 14:01, 14 Jun 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 19:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

W (alphabet)

A recent cut-paste to become the only letter of the alphabet with a dis-ambiguation suffix. What's silly is the 2-letter combination template at the bottom. Georgia guy 19:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Pointless duplication, and horizontal scrolling makes Baby Jesus cry. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 19:53, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Entirely duplicates the contents of W, breaks template, etc. --Tabor 19:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I see now, a misguided attempt to turn W into a disambig page instead of adding W (jpop) (non-existent article) to list of possible meanings already on the page. --Tabor 19:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dwelwete. Duplicative. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:18, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
delete. I am wondering why this case is not covered by speeedy deletion. mikka (t) 20:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete anyway - arguably it's vandalism, or nonsense, or a test. Either way, somebody kill it before it spreads. sjorford →•← 22:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The markup for that comment is just... frightening... Also, delete qw ickly. -- Jonel 04:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete duplication. JamesBurns 05:11, 4 Jun 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 - should be cleaned up and merged - SimonP 13:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures

This article is biased and unencyclopaedic 82.41.26.26 20:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup, condense, NPOV, and Merge to Remote viewing. --Tabor 20:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup, condense, NPOV, and don't merge to Remote viewing: it is already too large. However the title must be changed, since it is POVish. I' d suggest Remote viewing and religious scriptures. Kookery, but notable. mikka (t) 20:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not knowledgable here, but this article looks like a book report for this Cosmic Voyage work written by Courtney Brown. Could this be merged with his article, (after the blatent POV is removed)? No vote. func (talk) 21:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What the...? Here's a sample: "Another point is that Brown had not yet remote viewed the reptilians in his first book, but released data from his remote viewing sessions about Adam and Eve that showed that there was a subspace interference affecting both of them. His second book suggests that the reptilians could be the source of that interference; this would corroborate that same teaching in Genesis." Condense massivelty and merge with the kook's page. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:21, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Comment. Uh, I'm not really sure what to say about this. Obviously, this stuff is dripping with POV. Yes, it could be cleaned up, condensed and NPOVed, and merged with something else, but I think the important issue here is whether the topic itself really is at all notable? Are connections between the alleged results of remote viewing and religious scripture important enough to even warrant a short sentence or two in remote viewing or some other suitable article, if even that? I mean, yeah, I'm a skeptic, no question, but that's kind of beside the point here; I absolutely approve of having articles for remote viewing and other similar things. But is this particular subset of remote viewing really notable or significant? I'm not familiar enough with the subject to tell. I'd appreciate it if someone who's better informed here could put this in perspective... -- Captain Disdain 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These are just ravings ("The most important element of Brown's second book is that his remote viewed data suggests that the subspace reptilian interference is still active today and seems responsible for the weaponization of outer space.") carmeld1 02:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advocacy, possibly connected to claims of David Icke - Skysmith 09:26, 6 Jun 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 19:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Spookyhorse

Non-notable band vanity as per WP:MUSIC (a look at their Geocities site shows they play only local venues and you can only buy CDs straight from the band). --InShaneee 20:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 23:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:13, 4 Jun 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 since there is no context. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leo Leung

This is a vanity page and should be deleted. Gblaz 20:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, but congratulations Mr and Mrs Leung. --Ian Pitchford 17:49, 12 Jun 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 - should be merged - SimonP 13:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Miracle Channel Review

Non-notable website. tregoweth 20:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete advertising. JamesBurns 05:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep This entry is not advertising. It is provided for informational and educational purposes. How could it possibly be considered advertising? The organization has nothing to gain by promoting itself. If you check out the site, you will find no commercial products, nor will you find any advertising. As the author of this entry, I ask for recommendations, to make it more suitable or appropriate. --Thibault 05:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with The Miracle Channel. Vegaswikian 06:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with The Miracle Channel - Not advertising but not deeming of its own article either -CunningLinguist 07:35, 4 Jun 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 - kept - SimonP 14:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Academy of Football

Please note: Since this nomination was raised I have substantially rewritten the article. If you have already voted or read the article, it would be a good idea to check the new article over and possibly reconsider your vote. Thanks. --Mintie 02:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be an essay written in loving tribute to West Ham United F.C., rather than a proper encyclopedia article. tregoweth 20:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Response; it is a fact that the club is known as The Academy of Football, and the players and appearances for England are a matter of public fact as well. Wikipedia would be lacking in its description of West Ham United if it did not refer to this. Nevertheless the "essay style" and the "loving tribute" comments have been considered and the two final paragraphs have been removed.

Redirect and merge to West Ham United F.C.. If it's just a nickname for West Ham United, then there's absolutely no reason this should ever be anything more than a redirect. --Un focused 05:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I say all it needs is a severe rewrite for NPOV and style. The "Academy" is not just a nickname for the club, but a concept in itself. The article already contains enough factual information of interest to keep it separate from the West Ham article, but does need quite a bit of work. I'm willing to do it. Also, I think the West Ham United F.C. article is too big to put something of this size in it. --Mintie 00:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) (resigned) (see below)
- Questions: What other "The Academy of Football" is there? How many other clubs are known as "The Academy of Football"? Why can't the success of former players from this club be mentioned in the West Ham article? (I see some of that's been done already.) I still think a merge is in order, but will defer to the fans. --Un focused 00:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC
UPDATE: I have totally rewritten the article. It still needs a bit of copyedit and some statistical details ironed out, but it's an improvement. --Mintie 02:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep Antares33712 23:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent since my "essay written in loving tribute" got its re-write. It was so hard to write NPOV so soon after 30/5/05 !! Please keep now Esprit 12:04, 8 JUN 2005 UTC

Thanks for your kind comment. :-) --Mintie 23:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats ok glad someone put so much time in on it. I suspect you are a fan now so your ability to write NPOV so well is commendable Esprit 13:07, 9 JUN 2005 UTC

Yes, I'm a fan. I try to keep NPOV but it's difficult as you say. I ended up using a lot of weasel words though so it'll need more work. :-) --Mintie 04:24, 10 Jun 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 - renamed - SimonP 14:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Church_websites

Consists only of links to one or two external sites. Wirehead 20:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move to Religion and the internet and expand massively. For models, see Religion and homosexuality, Anarchism and religion, Languages on the Internet. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:15, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Move to Religion and the internet as BD2412 suggested, or move to Christian websites.--Gramaic 02:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Rick K 04:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete collection of external links. JamesBurns 05:15, 4 Jun 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 19:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ambar Saxena

The page is a CV for an individual and no part of the entry is suitable for inclusion in an encylopedia MarkS 20:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Wiki is not a resume site. Wikibofh 21:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:28, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete. GregorB 21:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, resumeecraft. Martg76 21:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, no CVs on Wiki. --Etacar11 23:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. StopTheFiling 20:57, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Extinctionism née Extinctionist

Delete. dictdef at best Wikibofh 21:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is. —Kjammer 22:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Google Web results indicates that there may be a philosophy that is described as extinctionism, albeit that the definition here does not match how others describe it: promotion of "the extinction of all life", the belief that "we need to work for the end of the human race". There are strong indications that this isn't a real philosophical doctrine propounded by actual people, however. As far as I can see from a quick search, this is at the very best another political epithet, a name-calling label applied by critics and never (with the exception of satirists) claimed by adherents, and the same would thus apply as at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Denialist. Uncle G 04:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
delete because it's too short to be useful Mozzerati 17:34, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism.mikka (t) 21:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think this was created to help justify/promote Church of Reality, along with positive evolution and doubt based. Paul August ☎ 21:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- This definition (as opposed to the ones given above) almost certainly was. However, one of the more interesting things that comes up in a Google Web search is someone telling Marc Perkel that he didn't invent the word "Extinctionist" because it had already been invented by someone else. Uncle G 05:30, 2005 Jun 5 (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 The Mandate of Heaven. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mandate of Heaven (book)

The subject doesn't look encyclopedic. Nothing links here except one paragraph on Mandate of Heaven that's highly similar; I suspect someone is wikifying on impulse a book they just read from the library or something. Suggest deletion, or if consensus is not to delete, move to The Mandate of Heaven (book). Quuxplusone 21:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move to The Mandate of Heaven. (The (book) disambig isn't really necessary since no other article shares its exact title.) Real, non-vanity press book. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree the book is real; but is it encyclopedic? Other than the fact that it has photos by Cartier-Bresson, I'm not aware of anything especially interesting about it. Is Wikipedia supposed to have an entry for every work of nonfiction ever published? (If the book has an interesting history, or is the vehicle for an interesting theory about the Chinese civil war, or something like that, then I agree Move. But I don't see any evidence of that.) --Quuxplusone 00:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - My notability threshold for books or other scholarly works (especially on a serious subject like Chinese history) is a lot lower than it is for, say, websites; I take a "notable until proven not notable" view of stuff like this. That the book was published by a non-vanity press is good enough for me. In addition, this article existed for eight minutes before you nominated it. I'm a stickler for bad stub articles and even I think that's a little premature. Give it a chance to grow. If the book is truly notable and interesting, someone will add more. If not, it'll stagnate and maybe get deleted later. (Of course, if some expert in the field pops in here and says, "This is just a generic unimportant book," I'll change my tune.) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Move to The Mandate of Heaven and keep there per android carmeld1 04:19, 5 Jun 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 19:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mackballing

I wonder whether saying: "People behaving as morons are usually not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article" would be considered a personal attack or not :) Sarg 21:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Likely hoax, joke, or attack page. Someone's grandmother doing combinations of illicit drugs? The presence of the photo makes it look even more like an attack on the subject of the photo. (Kill the photo, as well.) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 22:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And for God's sake, don't try this! Just look at the photo! Eixo 22:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete joke/hoax. And they claim to have coined the term last Tuesday... --Etacar11 23:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 02:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete. This site does have some good information, such as the fact that 15mg of this drug is the normal dosage, and that mackballing has become the popular term for the use of heroin and so-called "magic mushrooms" in combination. The site is obviously somewhat of a gag/hoax, but these parts should be changed, while the good information about Mackballing should be kept in tact and added onto by other knowledgable users.
- Add some verifiable information about this specific practice, then. (How does an illicit drug have a "normal" dosage?) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:18, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - Delete hoax/attack, also please keep in mind that the supposed normal dosage found on this page was writted by some hoaxsters who are liable not to have any medical expertise and thus should not be trusted nor kept on wikipedia. -CunningLinguist 07:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, silly hoax. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete patent nonsense Nohat 08:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I reverted Honshuzen's version of the article. Please, provide some verifiable sources for the information as AиDя01D said and then we will discuss if it's worth keeping. Sarg 08:27, 4 Jun 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 to userfy this to User:Hendrixski. However, this user has only made one edit so far: creating this page. It has since been edited by 129.21.125.63 (talk • contribs) who may or not be the same person. Under these circumstances, the best course of action is Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Barnaba Bienkowski

Just some guy, hope to contribute MeltBanana 21:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Userfy to User:Hendrixski. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy IF its an autobio article, maybe should ask the user.

ELSE DELETE vanity. Who ?¿? 23:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Userfy, if not Delete --Etacar11 23:35, 3 Jun 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 19:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Ernest Smith

Google 22 hits, none for this guy, all the groups mentioned not in WP. "Cult following" doesn't mean WP article autom. -- Feydey 21:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, i'm not big on the google only research, but it seems that he is some news editor, and hasbeen musician. None of the works listed don't even remotely lead to him. Vanity, non-notable. Who ?¿? 23:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:18, 4 Jun 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 19:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ben Sobaje

Famous for going on holiday MeltBanana 21:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE it's no Eurotrip, that's for sure. Vanity, non-notable. Who ?¿? 23:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm impressed. No, really. Delete. --Sn0wflake 23:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 01:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Who? Not notable! Vanity! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Account created today, all edits are to VfD. Rick K 22:54, Jun 12, 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. CDC (talk) 20:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chimezie Kudu

This article had been listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. However it does not fit the allowable categories, so I have moved it to votes for deletion. The original party (User:-Ril- suggested that the article "appears to not be noteworthy". I agree. Gblaz 21:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's noteworthy enough to list it on list of hoaxes, but not enough for an article on its own; it was mentioned in newspapers and the like when it happened, but Google only has 69 results for him, so he clearly isn't of Sidd Finch notability. I remember this column... it was funnier than heck. But delete the article. --Idont Havaname 23:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I dont believe that this article should be deleted. It sounds good, and it has alot to say, instead of being a stub, its become an article which has made alot of sense, insted of being dumb. Don't Delete J.R Caldwell
- First vote by User:69.251.134.131, the same user who wrote this article. --Idont Havaname 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is my first time on Wikipedia, and this link is how I found this site. A freind told me about it so I googled it and this came up as one of the results. Don't Delete it, its pretty informal. Willis
- Second vote by User:69.251.134.131. --Idont Havaname 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and add to list of hoaxes as said by Idont Celestianpower ^talk 21:16, Wednesday 27th November, 2024 (UTC)
- I already added it, so it's good to go. --Idont Havaname 19:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Erase it then- JR

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Herose

This is clearly a commercial for a product -puffery, in fact- and should be deleted. Eilthireach 21:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very weak keep. From WP:NOT: "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Further all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' companies are not likely to be acceptable." I don't think this is a 'garage' company but as a privately held Singapore-based company verifiability is on the low side. A more significant company, Eu Yan Sang International Ltd, (Singapore Exchange listed as "EYS") has an interest in Herose Pharma (see [14] and [15]). Herose has also been discussed in several online forums of patients suffering from skin problems (and the discussions have not always been favorable; the treatment is apparently extremely expensive). In addition, and what tips the scale for me, the company publicly announced in 2003 that it is conducting tests on an AIDS drug [16]. People may well want to read about the company, and that pushes my vote to a "keep". I have edited the article to tone down the puffery. DS1953 23:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep & Cleanup agree with DS1953, its an existant company with valid patents and products. Should be listed as a company profile with history and purpose, and less advertisement of one product. Needs a healthy overhaul. Who ?¿? 23:45, 3 Jun 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 - kept - SimonP 14:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-luddism

Sloppily-written, irredemably POV. I know of no persons or organizations who identify themselves as "neo-Luddite" - this is just a smear term. An entry on List of political epithets should be sufficient. This article is just a rant against individuals and organizations that various contributors disagree with. Firebug 22:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A Google search for "neo-luddite" yields 24,000 hits. The term is in common usage in by some proponents; it's in the title of Theodore Roszak's "The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking" and is used frequently in the text of Kirkpatrick Sale's "Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age." While the article may be sloppily written, the subject is encyclopedic and should be made to conform with NPOV by avenues other than deletion. ElBenevolente 22:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. While vanishingly few people would claim themselves as 'neo-Luddite', it's reasonable enough to have a page discussing the concept and why some people are accused by their opponents of it. David | Talk 22:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Luddite, which already mentions this term. This list of purported neo-Luddite groups and activities is original research. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. the article's talk page has an extensive discussion of the relevance (or existence) of the topic —Wahoofive (talk) 00:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important topic, and if it's POV, it can be fixed. People like Kass and Fukuyama may not refer to themselves as neo-Luddites, but I've heard them called such by people all over the political map. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I sympathise with this view, but have you read the article? It's such a mess I doubt it's fixable. Full of statements like this: "Infoshop.org is one of a number of propaganda fronts which simultaneously promote luddism and deny that it is any sort of organized movement, much like how Sinn Fein denied for decades any connection to the IRA." And: "Both have labelled the philosophy of transhumanism as, "the world's most dangerous idea," despite the fact that no transhumanist has ever attacked or sabotaged anyone or anything, while so far, leftist neo-luddites do so as a matter of right[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeywrenching)." Can anyone seriously claim that this is NPOV? Firebug 03:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - No one needs to claim that inflammatory crap is NPOV. An NPOV article can be written about neo-luddism. Some of the information currently in the article is useful; there's no need to start from scratch. (Personally, I think the "prominent neo-luddites" section is useful, though I agree that sources are needed.) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless this article gets a complete NPOV rewrite sometime within the next few days. As written it's just plain propoganda and full of errors. Kaibabsquirrel 03:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Luddite per Wahoofive, this could easily be covered there, and in a much better way. Prefixing "neo-" to an existing term doesn't really make it a new concept in any important way. It's just a neology. :D --Unfocused 05:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, the two concepts are separate. Luddites were English workers in the 1800s. Neo-luddism is a modern movement. I don't necessarily disagree that both things couldn't be covered in one article, but would you delete Neoclassicalism for the same reason? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - All right, you logic bombed me. Good shot. Neoclassicalism is a distinct movement based on imitation of ideal archetypes. But neo-luddites and luddites have the same underlying ideas and belief systems, so I don't think they're distinct enough for separate articles. I ask myself, if I were reading the luddite article, would I want to know how these exact same principles apply in the modern world? Yes. If I were reading the neo-luddite article, would I want to know the origin of these beliefs? Yes. Is there too much content for one article? No. So redirect and merge what's salvagable from the "neo" version. Re-read the neo-luddism article. Is there any sentence that has it's meaning changed by removing the "neo-"? I don't see any. --Unfocused 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you on the merge. I was just reacting to what seemed to me as a rather flippant dismissal of the article's subject just because it starts with neo-. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 05:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 05:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep: Fascinating subject of substantive, increasing importance. The intolerance demonstrated by attempts to stamp out such competing philosophies is hardly surprising, and smacks of censorship. Ombudsman 06:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep per ElBenevolente et al. Samaritan 12:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge the factual items from this article into articles on the persons or groups referenced, i.e. Earth Liberation Front, whose activities are extensively documented here, as well as articles on Kass, Fukuyama, Ehrlich, Capra, Meadows, etc. Then delete the neo-luddism article or redirect it to Anarcho-primitivism, and possibly transwiki a definition of neo-luddism in Wiktionary. Problems as I see them with this article:

1. The neo-luddism article is categorized under "social philosophy" but attempts to describe a specific political movement. The social philosophy is well-treated under Anarcho-primitivism.
2. The neo-luddism article presents facts and allegations about the separate actions and beliefs of individuals, groups, and organizations, but so far does not provide any specific evidence that these individuals, groups, and organizations are coordinated or related in any way in a single coherent "network" or "movement". Lukethelibrarian 18:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Topic with encyclopedic potential.Capitalistroadster 06:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. POVness can be fixed, it's not ground for deletion. Alfio 16:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. User:Firebug has engaged in a campaign of cyberstalking of me on wikipedia and is pursuing a political agenda. He may be a sockpuppet of User:Meelar. Deletion is a vote to suppress important information about a dangerous movement, its prominent sympathizers, members, etc and the groups involved. Supression of information for political purposes should not be what wikipedia is about.Mlorrey 18:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Neither should inclusion of information for political purposes. A vote for deletion is not necessarily a vote to suppress information; it may be a vote to preserve the purpose of Wikipedia. The fact that you argue for keeping the article on the basis of the "dangerous" nature of the alleged movement instead of the encyclopedic nature of the subject suggests that if this article is kept, it is going to need ongoing attention and contributions from a wide variety of editors to eventually grow into an informative NPOV article (as suggested by a number of the "keep" votes above). Lukethelibrarian 19:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. While User:Mlorrey is apparently incapable of distinguishing NPOV from his own political agenda, Neo-luddism is an important movement especially as it has impacted the field of bioethics. Many important political movements of the past two decades have derived from Neo-luddite thought and whether or not you agree with those movements has no bearing on their importance.BrentN 01:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Distinct term. Madd4Max 12:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Valid term. Who is John Galt? 13:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This user's first and only Wikipedia edit Kaibabsquirrel 00:52, 10 Jun 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 19:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Palmer

Vanity. Article fails to establish notability. Delete. Hermione1980 22:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment maybe vanity, also a direct copy from [17], I added copyvio on main page. More work on the article could establish notability. Who ?¿? 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 05:22, 4 Jun 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 19:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Arndt

Seems to be a personal attack page, and done badly. No strong claim for notability. David | Talk 22:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. --Sn0wflake 23:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity or attack. Whatever. --Etacar11 23:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete only 2 of the listed "accomplishments", being in the University political club and creating a blog, don't establish a mentionable notability. Vanity. Who ?¿? 00:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete personal attack. JamesBurns 05:23, 4 Jun 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 19:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sue Turner

Non-notable--local interest--facts transitory/unverifiable. "Since she became principal, bullying has decreased."--no evidence to support claim, and even if there was, tracking year-over-year invididual school 'troublemakers' stats seems beyond the purview of a general interest encyclopedia covering the universe over all of time--'laudable' != 'notable'. Also get rid of the redlinks for other individuals names at Heart Lake Secondary School as being a vice-principal at a random public school is not inherently encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable enough to be on the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 23:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Etacar11 23:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete personal attack, probably done by one of the students, non-notable. should have been speedy. Who?¿? 00:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually it was speedily deleted. must have been accidentally re-added when the Vfd was posted. see deletion log Who ?¿? 00:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete personal attack. JamesBurns 05:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Useless content. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:49, 5 Jun 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 19:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Eugene Fama Jr.

Seems to be a run-of-the-mill financial guy who likes to draw. Presumed vanity. Fawcett5 23:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, has his own website to promote his work, non-encyclopedic at this point. Who ?¿? 00:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 01:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've merged into Eugene Fama the information that his son works for his investment advisory company. I would add in that article that his son is also a comics artist, but it's not clear to me from his website whether he's published all this work (i.e., been accepted in the professional community) or just does it for his own satisfaction. He might be notable but it's not established. JamesMLane 08:51, 4 Jun 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 19:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Godo

Non-notable 1337 speak. Delete. --Sn0wflake 23:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 05:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete should have just been listed on internet slang instead, so maybe merge. Who ?¿? 06:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete into internet slang. Alphax ^τεχ 16:46, 16 Jun 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 19:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gabe Wawrin

Non-notable vanity. Part of a string of vanity pages from the same author (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chris labosky, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Ullinger, ...). Delete, if not speedy. --Idont Havaname 23:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. --Etacar11 00:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Who ?¿? 06:39, 4 Jun 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 19:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Taryn Vidic

Strong delete if not speedy, non-notable. I think it's written by the same user who brought us Chris labosky, Steve Ullinger, and Gabe Wawrin. Plus, Wikipedia is not a place to announce who your crush is... rather POV, I'd say. --Idont Havaname 23:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 00:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Official number one delete. Vanity, not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
But "she has over 500 collectibles memorabilia of Linkin Park". mmk, vanity DELETE <>Who ?¿? 06:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Madd4Max 12:23, 8 Jun 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. —Xezbeth 19:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk talk:Approval mechanism

This page name is an obvious misspelling. I'm not quite sure what to do with its content... Wikipedia talk:Approval mechanism was blanked and its content moved when Wikipedia:Approval mechanism was made a redirect to Meta:Article validation. Probably this should go there too.--Nabla 23:59, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Comment I believe I read somewhere on Wikipedia, that there should be no internal references to other Wiki sections. <>Who ?¿? 06:52, 4 Jun 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. —Xezbeth 19:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Dakotas

This seems like an ideal candidate for merging or deletion, there's already several pages on very similar topics, such as Dakota or Dakota Territory and it doesn't offer much that's new. What does everyone else think? StoneColdCrazy 00:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The Dakotas are a specific geographical place and they deserve their own article (just like The Carolinas). Although Dakota Territory and The Dakotas describe the same area of land, they are different things that deserve different articles. "Dakota Territory" is a historical term and its article should have a historical perspective. "The Dakotas" is an actively used term that deserves an article that briefly describes this portion of the United States. I would encourage some expansion of The Dakotas article instead of deletion. --MatthewUND 00:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Dakotas was also the name of Billy J. Kramer's backing group so you'd need the entry for a disambig in any case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - and the term can be used to describe a native American tribe, too. Seems like a good disambiguation page. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a disambig. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:17, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep. Useful as a disambig or if expanded. They might as well be one state anyway... :-) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 03:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as with other geographical articles of this sort (New England, Northern California etc.), and expand. Kaibabsquirrel 03:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as DAB move the current text to The Dakotas (states). Vegaswikian 06:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. What's wrong with the current primary topic disambig? By far the most common meaning is the area bounded by the pair of states. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We also have the Carolinas, btw. jengod 01:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable geographic area. Capitalistroadster 06:51, 5 Jun 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.

June 3

A series of articles on Imperial Japan in broken English

Update

Update 2

More content

Kim evoy, Pam glass and Shawn wilson

Extinctionism née Extinctionist