Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Routes car rental[edit]

Blatant advertisement. Wolf530 (talk · contribs)

  • Delete. Advertising. Harro5 00:21, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question. I'm puzzled. This may have been intended as advertising (I can't read the mind of the author), but if so I see nothing blatant about the advertising, even in the version immediately previous to Wolf530's addition of a VfD tag. It could be that the company is insignificant, but that's a different issue (or arguably a non-issue). Where's the blatant advertising? -- Hoary 00:32, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
Perhaps blatant is too strong a word. But considering the tone of the article touting the company's "rapid growth" and then the inclusion of the website URL, seems to me like the company has little need for an encyclopedia article at this present stage unless someone can provide us some information that makes this company unique enough to be listed on Wikipedia. --Wolf530 00:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a blatant advertisement in my book at this stage. However, as the company's website shows that it has 23 locations in Ontario and none outside, I doubt that it is sufficiently notable to warrant retention. Unless there is some evidence of notability added to the article, I vote to Delete.Capitalistroadster 00:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 02:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm never going to rent a car from them. I rent only from notable companies that have plenty of outlets in my area. So there. C W Merchant 00:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and sure looks like an ad. DES 16:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesnt seem like an advert to me, should maybe be expanded a bit. Does Hertz have an entry? --Alphachimp 02:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hertz and "Routes" are hardly comparable. --Wolf530 06:50, May 27, 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) 21:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrived certainty[edit]

Neologism and/or original research Denni☯ 00:21, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete or Speedy This is part of the Mythrandia/Serapion vandalism/nonsense spree of the past couple days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense, neologism. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 06:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism, 10 googles (7 distinct), (and article doesn't make sense). RJFJR 19:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with RJFJR -- does not make sense. --Simon Cursitor 07:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this gibberish. Irpen 06:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with RJFJR above. DES 16:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 freecycle CDC (talk) 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deron Beal[edit]

Vanity Denni☯ 00:27, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • How about redirecting to freecycle, which is sort of notable? --W(t) 02:00, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to freecycle, anyone looking for this guy is almost definitely looking for freecycle info. Tufflaw 06:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Alphachimp 02:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drizzo[edit]

Schoolkids and instruments, good luck to them and all, but a wikipedia entry for them is going to have to wait. Band vanity. Nothing on Amazon, Drizzo + punk ska gets 12 or so pages suggested in google, only two related. Delete Sabine's Sunbird 00:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 01:59, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (sigh) This is all R.A. Salvatore's fault. Unsigned, unrecorded, unperforming band. It's true that some groups have had top 10 hits when of school age, but this isn't one of them. Geogre 20:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Ah, what a wonder the random page button is. Mr Bound 01:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Darren Harbaugh[edit]

Only claim to notability is having written a book, which I can't find any evidence of. --W(t) 00:30, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently unpublished author. Sorry, not notable. Sjakkalle 11:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be vanity. Zero google hits for book. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A person who has written one book is arguably not noteable on the face of it, and this book is not listed on amazon nor has any hits on Google. The name "Darren Harbaugh" has no hits except as a blogger (who many or may not be the same person). The IP that posted this article has made only one other edit: to add "Darren Harbaugh" to the list of "famous alumni" of "Biola University" (which itself looks on the thin edge of being non-notable). This looks like vantit, but is surely a non-notable entry.
  • Delete seems to just be vanity --Alphachimp 02:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everything records[edit]

Patent nonsense created by aghost, who has written several other questionable articles. Denni☯ 00:33, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Is this really 'so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it'? I can understand it more as a vanity issue, but i keep getting the feeling that users here think that if they can't find music on google, it doesn't exist. The problem is that there is no objective view of fame. Aghost 00:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm happy to accept that things I can't find on Google exist. In fact, I'm busy trying to track down stuff based only on titles and a poorly-arranged cover track. I'm satisfied that the original tracks I'm looking for do exist. I'm also satisfied that a label created yesterday on Wikipedia itself clearly makes for a vanity Wikipedia article which should be deleted. Chris talk back 04:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiki should not be a platform for infastructure. The absence of a seperate website from wiki suggests aghost is using this page as a means to avoid webhosting costs. Imagine: Every company (profit or not) having a wiki page advertising their employees and show dates. I'd also like to add that the only ones who seem to support this page are he and his friends. I'd like to see someone who isn't involved with EVERYTHING RECORDS directly, or indirectly, provide a coherent reason for keeping this page. --ImaSpy 03:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
lets not forget that its rather difficult to 'advertise' a show thats already happened. Aghost 15:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Objectively, something created yesterday most likely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 01:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 01:58, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 02:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush underfoot, I mean delete. -- Hoary 04:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity --Bobbagum 20:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Vandalism. You do not create a record label on Wikipedia! That is called hijacking, and we don't allow it. Wikipedia is not a web host. It is not an announcement board. It is not a chat room. It is not a university. It is an encyclopedia. Geogre 20:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I consider the wiki piranhas who are circling carpenter to be a classic case of internet bullying (see: trolling). If only the users posting this tripe could visit Baltimore and observe the profound effect of Everything and it's subsidaries on the area and it's community. The actual content of wwcarpen/aghost and everything records (www.kracfive.com please) should be consumed before such hasty judgement (and if your tastes differ then you should find a friend who can accurately judge this type of music) . In any case, it deserves preservation and is a travesty that there is such proactive movement against. Khonnor 02:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just what is the "profound effect of Everything [records] and it's [sic] subsidiaries on the [Baltimore] area and it's [sic] community", User:Khonnor? And how is this independently verifiable? (Incidentally, I notice that your only edits so far are to this VfD page and to User:Khonnor.) -- Hoary 03:03, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear vanity. Do not create articles about yourself. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
do not say do not. here, have a donut. Aghost 14:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC) (sorry) Aghost 03:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ban. Creating real things is hard work. You know, like trying to write an encyclopedia without having people inserting their own fantasies into it. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "founded on the wikipedia". Attempt to use Wikipedia to host a personal project. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Delete. Uncle G 15:10, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, echo Uncle G. --BaronLarf 23:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
i dont understand why this article presents problems as a homepage or file storage site (in reference to Wikipedia is not a hosting service). it provides only encyclopedic information. I would like to know which portion of the article isn't considered so. Aghost 00:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Being a Baltimore resident, I am familiar with the label Everything records. I also attest that this label was present before it was "founded" on Wikipedia, as I am an acquaintance with the founder. Must there be a fancy website to show proof? Yes, the label is small and open-source, but the persons that have voted for deletion are simply not informed. As the internet is the only frame of reference for many people to conduct research on an article within Wikipedia, I understand how administrators might feel if a primarily electronic and computer-music record label does not have a notable website to display capitalist ideals. I stress that deletion of this article would symbolize the non-observation of a documented fact. I have walked into a store, albeit only in Baltimore at the time, and purchased music produced by this label. I have seen their studio, I have handed out flyers for performances. They exist, and not because of Wikipedia. The founder is merely attempting to provide this site with factual information. I comprehend WHY some would wish to delete this article, but again, I stress that decision comes from the inability to locate convenient urls for Everything Records and endless caches of online-music purchases from the label. ....posted at 02:02, 2005 May 25 by Pyramidman a new username whose contributions have been extraordinarily limited.
pyramidman is rami (musician)'s wikipedia account. Hopefully this presents some sort of verification. Aghost 03:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self promotion. Leanne 05:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability, aside from issues of vanity articles and using wikipedia as a hosting service.
  • Delete: Per earlier comments above, yes I agree Everything Records exists. But, there are several people/groups who think they are the one, true Everything Records. See [1] (see album Something Borrowed) and [2]. Aghost found his version of Everything Records here on Wikipedia, which is not a hosting service, and something that was founded on 20 May of this year has hardly been in existence long enough to be considered notable. Aghost similarly founded Free Online University on Wikipedia. That article was put up for deletion, and it lost. See [Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Free_Online_University]. This project is little different. I don't think we should be taking the stance that anything made/edited by Aghost should be ruthlessly hunted down and deleted. I do think we should fairly and judiciously apply Wikipedia's policies. In this case, it seems very clear this article should be deleted based on Wikipedia policies. If, however, the article were re-written to be about a considerably more notable Everything Records, then we perhaps consider keeping it. --Durin 02:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it does. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to defend why there are (if we include yours) three 'Everything Records'? I've done my homework. Let's see yours :) --Durin 04:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • read carefully, you cite a release on a label entitled for everything records as well a label that has no copyright and virtually no notability or verifiabilty. Aghost 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC) if its that much of a concern why dont we create disambiguation pages for these other supposedly notable labels you mention. Aghost 05:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You chastise me for citing a no notability and no verifiability record label of the same name, and expect us to vote to keep your record label founded here on Wikipedia a few days ago? You can't be serious. --Durin 19:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though created prior to everything records, everything records would likey be in violation of nothing records' copyright and this is probably why they do not hold a copyright themselves. everything records is considerably more notable as it holds a copyleft and all of the artists have released albums on a notable label, and/or shown work or performed music to large audiences for several years. Aghost 03:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with everyone when they say that Wikipedia is not an advertising board, and that "a label founded on Wikipedia" is an oxymoron. However, I do believe this article can have some potential iff (if and only if)
  1. The article is completely written by someone other than the founder or any of the associated artists;
  2. Evidence of any notable widespread (preferably international) releases is provided.
Outside of that, yes, it is nothing more than a vanity page. --Jb-adder 01:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I count 14 delete and 2 keep, without looking at the credentials of the voters. Any reason to keep this going? Cheers.--BaronLarf 13:48, Jun 1, 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 ambiguous.

There are many conflicting claims in this discussion and little verifiable evidence. On the strict vote count, I find 8 clear "delete" votes, 8 "keep" votes (three had to be discounted as such new accounts that they can not be reliably differentiated from sockpuppet accounts), one that was too ambiguous to call and one explicit "userfy" vote.

I was unable to substantiate most of the claims made by the "keep" voters. Even after reading through the comments and opinions presented, it is not clear to me that this person does in fact meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines.

Further, it is unclear whether the subject of this article participated in edits to the article or not. Someone using the subject's name for a username did create an account just in time to participate in this discussion (and has not been back since). Based on the pattern of edits, I have a suspicion that the account may itself be a sockpuppet. I have so far been unable to confirm or exclude that hypothesis. If the subject did participate in either the editing of the article or this discussion, please note that such participation is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia has two inviolate rules - articles must be verifiable and must be written from a neutral point of view. Both those objectives are exponentially harder when the subject of a biography is participating.

I am going to exercise my discretion to override the strict vote count on this decision. Noting that user:khonnor contains nothing more than a link to this article (and was created after this discussion was started), I am going to move the article to his user space. If/when this article is nominated to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, I strongly request that the participants restrict their comments to the facts and evidence necessary to establish whether this person meets the appropriate criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Khonnor[edit]

Non-notable, another aghost-related article Denni☯ 00:37, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete. No allmusic.com entry, which may not mean much for a fringe/underground artist, but article provides no alternative evidence of nobility. Given the other Aghost created articles, this may simply be a prank. Gamaliel 01:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should have looked at the history before I assumed it was yet another Aghost creaton. In any case, I'm convinced by the changes to the article. Keep. Gamaliel 18:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the rest of aghost's articles, all seem to be vanity/hoax/nonsense/jokes Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you want to make an article on a significantly-encyclopedic IDM figure, maybe instead create an article about Esa Ruoho of Lackluster -- at least Esa has had a couple prominent IDM artists mention his name as an influence on their work, and he's influenced both the IDM as well as the tracker scenes (like Bogdan Raczkykszkzkzyksynszky). I can't think of anything Khonnor has done that's left a mark on the art of IDM. --I am not good at running 01:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might think it interesting to know that khonnor and lackluster have known each other well for several years via irc. Aghost 04:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
very notable. Aghost 16:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not verifiable. -- Hoary 04:09, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and Keep. It is tempting to believe that Aghost is unable to create articles on notable people, but this one is it: Google for Khonnor handwriting (artist + album name) and you get some 900 links, many reviews from reputable sources like the New York Times. Rl 07:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: yes, there does seem to be something there. Incidentally, one (unfavorable) review told me his name is Connor Kirby-Long. Does he get an article on the strength of one album? -- Hoary 08:11, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • I have removed the unverifiable stuff. All that's left is a stub on a young musician who got rave reviews from people who are into this kind of music (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6]). Rl 08:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that this article was not written by Aghost, he edited it, mostly to add stuff relating to himself. Rl 08:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And to tell you the truth khonnor is rather offended that his own as well as my revisions were removed, as they are rather factual. Aghost 18:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Khonnor has made 0 edits to the page [7]. And it's not like edits can't be replaced. Maybe the page's talk page is a better place to discuss this, though. This page is just to decide whether or not the page should be deleted/kept. What is actually on the page (should it be kept) is a matter that isn't relevant here. R Calvete 18:59, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
for the record user 66.92.46.119 is user:khonnor and myself previous to either of us creating accounts. Aghost 22:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Don't really know. It's now verifiable, but it's not all that impressive. Don't much care. (But I hope I've improved it very slightly.) -- Hoary 09:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Keep notable IDM. Klonimus 19:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline: The reviews exist, so that makes him notable enough, but this is very thin ice. A single record isn't really a career, and the fact that it attracted our vanity friend doesn't cheer anyone. Keep, barely, but watch. Geogre 20:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, does exist, verifiable. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, but I don't consider that to be gospel. I also don't think it's fair to say he shouldn't be included because he hasn't been an influential IDM musician. There are plenty of musicians that aren't very influential. R Calvete 02:22, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Khonnor -- Hoary 03:06, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again: I have released on multiple net labels and have gotten coverage from multiple influtential publications like NME. This whole debate is very frustrating due to the fact that users are vandalizing my page with non-factual information when it was originally factual. The fact that one user changed my hometown from Saint Johnsbury, Vermont to "Vermont, Illnois" proves how little dedication and knowledge that the user has of the afformentioned scene and my music. Please take the time to look at the history of this stub and the petty revisions users have made in reaction to wwcarpen/everythingrecords/aghost.

If this page is deleted it will be created again by a fan, and if this is not possible more issues will arise. My music has conceived a fan-base larger than I can control. Does this not qualify me as a legitimate artist?

In reaction to: "*Abstain. Don't really know. It's now verifiable, but it's not all that impressive. Don't much care. (But I hope I've improved it very slightly.) -- Hoary 09:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)" Maybe you should start "caring" about the integrity of the artist before electing entries for deletion in addition to vandalizing accurate information. I have deleted your comment due to sheer ignorance of the scene and misinformation plus I found it quite offensive. I have (reluctantly) corrected the mistakes you have made to my page (and forgiven your personal evaluation of my creative work) and this is worth less of my time every minute.

A worthless pedantic mess.

This username was created to protect mine and my label's namesake. Stub existed prior to my posts. And thankfully users Westifer and Steinsky logged their user names. Are they going to be elected for VFD because they are (however distantly) to aghost and wwcarpen?

This information battle should be stopped post haste!

Khonnor 03:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The screed above was contributed in a series of edits by Khonnor and Aghost. Khonnor, don't delete comments, no matter how offensive they seem. Although I don't know what you mean by your claim to have deleted my (or somebody else's) comment, as a look in the history of this VfD page shows that you did no such thing: I struck through my own earlier comment when I decided that the best thing to do with this article was to userfy it. I don't think "the integrity of the artist" is an issue. Meanwhile, you do appear to be making your own vanity an issue. -- Hoary
this isnt just an integrity of the artist issue this is about the wiki community deciding they know more about an artists persona than the artist themselves. We can either have information in these articles that have been supplied by the artist originally then filtered through numerous proxies until its posted on the internet years later, or you can just listen to the artist themselves, now. Aghost 08:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki community hasn't decided anything. They are merely attempting to add to the article based on preexisting published sources. Sometimes mistakes happen. Gamaliel 17:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the attempts by User:Khonnor to turn this article into a PR screed shows that we shouldn't have it here. And threats to recreate after deletion will be dealt with by blocking, if needed. RickK 09:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Khonnor became known to me after i had seen the MTV produced documentary series This Is Our Music [8], where the fourth episode in season two is about him. From seeing that documentary i can say he establish enough notability to be in Wikipedia. bbx 12:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable carmeld1 00:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 13:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep , this guy has been on MTV, released an album that was acclaimed in mainstream media, and before that released some netlabel stuff as seen above. Jbgroove 16:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with this user's first (and so far only) edit. Rl 16:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and he also clear fills "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized count" part of WP:MUSIC. . since he toured Sweden earlier this year, playing at least Lund Stockholm and Gothenburg. See [9] for an english review of one of the shows he did. Jbgroove 17:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is getting absolutly ridiculous, see above couple comments for reasons why this article strictly adheres to more (if not all) of the guidelines for a musician article. anyone who is holding a grudge because i made an edit to this page (after its creation, and with the encouragement of the artist himself) needs to seriously look at their ettiquite on the wikipedia. Aghost 00:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self-promotion. Leanne 05:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I get some 37k hits [10] so it seems that some khonnor is notable.--MarSch 13:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appearing as featured on a show on MTV clearly qualifies this article for keep. See WP:MUSIC item #4. Khonnor might not be notable enough for most people, but he clearly qualifies under predetermined watermarks for notability. Him being 18 should not be a factor; keep in mind that George Harrison was only 20 when Beatlemania began. Stick to the policies; age is not a factor here. Notability is. If being featured on MTV is insufficient, then everything is insufficient. --Durin 02:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is absurd; quit the ad-hominem attacks and spite. "Handwriting"'s been reviewed on Pitchfork (among other places previously noted). The lack of a presence on AMG is AMGs problem. I don't care whether or not the artist had a part in making the article, it is objectively notable. --Kine 16:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to quote WikiProject Music guidelines: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: ... 4. Has been prominently featured in any major music media".
  • Keep Khonnor is a notable, and becoming more and more so, musician. He complies with WP:MUSIC #4 for having his release “Handwriting” featured/reviewed in over thirty publications, including more wide-known New York Times, NME, and Pitchfork Media. Not to mention being the feature in an episode of MTVe produced documentary series This Is Our Music. Wouldn’t MTV be considered the most prominent music media powerhouse? He also follows under WP:MUSIC #6. Being notable in IDM is very iffy, seeing as IDM has become quite a general term. When artists from Aphex Twin and µ-Ziq to Telefon Tel Aviv and Boards of Canada have been considered IDM -- it is almost as general as the term “alternative” or “indie.” He is, however, notable in the netlabel scene. Netlabels, although exist almost exclusively in digital format, may not seem tangible, but are definitely quite prominent. With three releases as Grandma on Monotonik, one release on 8Bit Peoples as I, Cactus and others (including Clown Connecktion, although I am not completely sure that is him). And now with a “physical” release on a “real” music label, although not a netlabel, would deem that he is quite a musician. Having over five decent releases, with a good-sized fanbase of listeners, how does any of this not make Khonnor a musician and notable for being on Wikipedia? If anything, his stub should be expanded. --Jordan Burman 09:13, 1 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caffeinism[edit]

Original research from health-mad anon user, probably same as has created Wolfing Food and other pages on VFD. Mainly exists to further editors own site, so self-promotion. Linking to the article from every page possible, even when totally unsuitable --Kiand 00:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - actually exists. Pubmed search reveals 23 scientific papers, seems otherwise plausible. Fawcett5 00:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment How come it woefully fails the Google Test then? Sure, caffeine addiction can exist, but this page, and its author, seems to think it ranks up with extremely major mental illnesses and not as a general addiction. For reference - under 1000 Google hits, international search. --Kiand 00:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It failed becaused you spelled it wrong. I get lots of hits. I have now also confirmed that it really is a condition recognized by the DSM IV. Research before Vfd please. Fawcett5 00:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Note also that sufficient quantity of virtually any stimulant can induce psychosis. Fawcett5 00:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I spelt it the way the article author spelt it... Either way, article is still vaguely rant-y, and was linked to from every single major mental health article in the worst and least relevant ways (fixed that). Again, excess amounts of nearly -anything- causes problems. Doesn't mean we shoud have Hydroism as an article, though... --Kiand 00:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Hydroism"? I think the term you want is hyponatremia, hyperhydration, or water intoxication --Carnildo 06:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Searching Pubmed for 'caffeinism psychosis' return a single paper. The DSM-IV lists caffeine related anxiety and caffeine related sleep disorder, but nothing about caffeine related psychosis. It doesn't use the term caffeinism either. -- ascorbic 20:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup is more useful here than deletion I think, though the author is using wikipedia as a soapbox a little too much for my liking. Defining caffeinism as an addiction to caffeine is new to me by the way. --W(t) 01:58, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neoligism and original research --nixie 04:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment But how can it be a neologism if a search for "caffeinism" on Google" turns up 5,970 hits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.181.16.31 (talk • contribs)
By being a new meaning for an existing word. --Carnildo 02:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep. I'm not the originator of this article (who termed caffeinism "addiction to caffeine") but I am the person who has added significantly to it for the past several weeks. (No longer anonymous but registered as BrianinNYC.)

I'm not the creator of Wolfing Food or any spurious entries of any kind. Nor am I "health-mad" (although I confess to quoting Gary Null below). However, I am very much determined to alert the public to the symptoms of caffeinism, which I had two years ago. Within 9 months of starting a 1-3 cup a day coffee habit, I went from excellent health to psychosis, walking around with my eyes glazed over and my arms stiff at my sides. I was about 90% oblivious to the symptoms engulfing me: anxiety, restless legs, chattiness, euphoria, disorientation and delusions (including, on one occasion, paranoia and hostility). I came very close to going on heavy meds and being institutionalized, after living 30 years rarely taking more than an aspirin for anything.

Since withdrawing my symptoms have vanished entirely and my former health has returned. I've spoken with many others who had the same experience, and several doctors well enough educated in toxicology or immunology to diagnose it, and see their patients' health restored.

I believe it should remain under "caffeinism" based on the currency of the term in medical circles. "Caffeine overdose" implies an acute, one-time episode (like popping a dozen Vivarin). But caffeinism, in its most insidious form, is a chronic condition that mimics manic depression, schizophrenia and a host of other ills that last for years--and are treated not with stomach pumps but pharmaceuticals.

The following are just a few of the many alarming statements about caffeinism by psychiatrists, toxicologists and MDs, scattered throughout the medical literature. Many more are added weekly to the Experts page at the nonprofit Web site I'm building,CaffeineWeb.com, where anyone can click on links to the original sources:


DC Mackay and JW Rollins, "Caffeine and caffeinism," Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service,1989;75(2):65-7: "[When caffeine is taken in excess], anxiety-related symptoms become increasingly apparent. A case of caffeinism, which presented as a paranoid delusion, is reported as an extreme example of this. A study of 60 hospital inpatients revealed that about 40% of them consumed sufficient caffeine to produce symptoms of caffeinism. It is thus recommended that all patients should be questioned on their caffeine intake. Also, caffeinism should be considered as a differential diagnosis of anxiety states."


L Tondo and N Rudas, "The course of a seasonal bipolar disorder influenced by caffeine," Journal of Affective Disorders: "A longitudinal case report shows a sudden remission of the severe course of a seasonal bipolar disorder after 10 years of psychopharmacological treatments. The discontinuation of heavy caffeine intake appears to have contributed to the outcome."


Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV): "The 4 caffeine-induced psychiatric disorders include caffeine intoxication, caffeine-induced anxiety disorder, caffeine-induced sleep disorder, and caffeine-related disorder not otherwise specified (NOS)."


Drs. JE James and KP Stirling, in The British Journal of Addiction: "Although infrequently diagnosed, caffeinism is thought to afflict as many as one person in ten of the population."


Clinical nutritionist Stephen Cherniske, Author, Caffeine Blues: Wake Up to the Dangers of America's #1 Drug: "For five years I worked in a team practice with physicians and psychotherapists. Often, the psychological evaluation would include one or more anxiety syndromes, and the recommendation was for counseling. I would point out that the person was consuming excessive amounts of caffeine and request a trial month off caffeine prior to therapy sessions. In about 50% of cases, the anxiety syndrome would resolve with caffeine withdrawal alone."

"In over a decade of practice as a clinical nutritionist, I have seen firsthand, with thousands of clients, that caffeine is a health hazard. Anxiety, muscle aches, PMS, headaches....However, if that's all caffeine has done to you, you're lucky. What about people misdiagnosed as neurotic or even psychotic, who spend years and small fortunes in psychotherapy--all because no one asked them about their caffeine intake?"


Roland R. Griffiths, Ph.D, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Professor of Behavioral Biology, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences; Professor of Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience; Formerly Research Chief, Department of Psychiatry, Baltimore City Hospitals, Baltimore, MD: "The potential for caffeine intoxication to cause clinically significant distress is reflected by the inclusion of caffeine intoxication as a diagnosis in DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition)(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and in ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Edition)(World Health Organization). Caffeine intoxication has long been recognized as a discrete syndrome associated with excessive caffeine use. Caffeinism is an older term that has been used to describe the toxic effects of caffeine resulting from acute or chronic use. Caffeine intoxication is currently defined by a number of symptoms and clinical features that emerge in response to recent consumption of caffeine. Common features of caffeine intoxication include nervousness (anxiety), restlessness, excitement, insomnia, rambling flow of thought and speech, gastrointestinal upset, tremors, tachycardia, diuresis, muscle twitching, periods of inexhaustibility, and psychomotor agitation. In addition, there have been reports of patients with caffeine intoxication having fever, irritability, tremors, sensory disturbances, tachypnea, and headaches."


Ruth Whalen, MLT, "How Much Mental Illness Is an Allergy to Caffeine?": "Caffeine toxicity may be mistaken for bipolar disorder. Symptoms include: chattiness, repetitive thought and action (resembling obsessive compulsive disorder), restlessness, psychomotor agitation, alternating moods, anger, impulsiveness, aggression, omnipotence, delirium, buying sprees, lack of sexual inhibition, and loss of values. Toxicity is known to cause excitement, agitation, restlessness, shifting states of consciousness, and toxic psychosis, mimicking amphetamine psychosis. Allergic individuals may be erroneously diagnosed, medicated, and lost in a dark disturbed world, until death."


Dr. Sidney Kaye, Institute of Legal Medicine: "The symptoms vary with acquired or inborn tolerance, but in general the patients may complain of [among other symptoms] nervousness, restlessness, silliness, elation, euphoria, confusion, disorientation, excitation, and even violent behavior with wild, inanic screaming, kicking and biting, progressing to semi-stupor."

"Coffee overindulgence is overlooked many times because the bizarre symptoms may resemble and masquerade as an organic or mental disease....But what a feeling of relief to both physician and patient to see the symptoms completely disappear on the physician's order to stop drinking coffee."


Sanford Bolton, PhD, and Gary Null, M.S., in the Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry: "Caffeinism may result in a syndrome which resembles and may be confused or confounded with true psychotic states. This may lead to misdiagnosis and mistreatment. A question arises from the varied reports of caffeine consumption in psychiatric populations: Does caffeine stimulate psychosis or does psychosis stimulate caffeine consumption?"


Calvin Thrash, MD, Author, Food Allergies Made Simple: "Thousands are in mental institutions today because of no greater matter than that of the use of caffeine. Psychiatrists are now publishing articles indicating that there are numerous cases of depression and anxiety in mental institutions, who need no other treatment than to be taken off caffeine.

"However, the use of caffeine is so traditional and firmly entrenched that it is almost impossible to remove caffeinated drinks from the diet of patients in mental institutions. Soft drink machines, coffee dispensers, and the traditional coffee break are common pastimes in mental institutions, and with those who are mentally ill at home."


Again, please let the article remain. I apologize for the "soapbox" tone and have no objections to others amending it, as long as the substance of the article stands. Thanks so much!

Brian@CaffeineWeb.com

  • Keep - Looks like the basis for a decent article to me. Leithp 08:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks to me like the basis for a decent article. Laurel Bush 09:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Like the basis for a decent article, to me, this looks. --Doc Glasgow 11:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've lost patience with this. Change vote to merge and direct as per Geogre below.--Doc Glasgow 22:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a basis for a decent article . (I not sure though) --IncMan 11:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The journal references indicate that this a real issue. Martg76 12:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep ON the condition that the anon refrain from adding to all other pages on mental illnesses/neurological conditions "It is distinguished from non-organic conditions that mimic it, such as caffeinism." Caffeinism may be real, but even if it is, it's only one among many substances where an overdose can produce symptoms similar to some organic disorder. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to Delete; see below. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the contributor whose edits are being disputed I only added a caffeinism reference to entries about the illnesses and symptoms that it mimics or is associated with (e.g., bipolar disorder and anxiety). I think it deserves the prominence I've given it in those entries, based on the following statements from medical professionals, which specifically address how widespread caffeinism is and how insidiously it mimics organic illnesses:

Clinical Management of Poisoning and Drug Overdose, 3rd ed., 1998
 Michael W. Shannon, MD, MPH, Director, Lead and Toxicology Clinic, The Children's Hospital Boston; Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School; Lester M. Haddad, MD, Clinical Professor in Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina; Bon Secours St. Francis Xavier Hospital; James F. Winchester, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Georgetown University Medical Center:

"Caffeine-induced psychosis, whether it be delirium, manic depression, schizophrenia, or merely an anxiety syndrome, in most cases will be hard to differentiate from other organic or non-organic psychoses....The treatment for caffeine-induced psychosis is to withhold further caffeine."

DC Mackay and JW Rollins, "Caffeine and caffeinism," Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service,1989;75(2):65-7: "A study of 60 hospital inpatients revealed that about 40% of them consumed sufficient caffeine to produce symptoms of caffeinism. It is thus recommended that all patients should be questioned on their caffeine intake. Also, caffeinism should be considered as a differential diagnosis of anxiety states."

Drs. JE James and KP Stirling, in The British Journal of Addiction: "Although infrequently diagnosed, caffeinism is thought to afflict as many as one person in ten of the population."

Clinical nutritionist Stephen Cherniske, Author, Caffeine Blues: Wake Up to the Dangers of America's #1 Drug: "What about people misdiagnosed as neurotic or even psychotic, who spend years and small fortunes in psychotherapy--all because no one asked them about their caffeine intake?"

Ruth Whalen, MLT, "How Much Mental Illness Is an Allergy to Caffeine?": "Caffeine toxicity may be mistaken for bipolar disorder....Allergic individuals may be erroneously diagnosed, medicated, and lost in a dark disturbed world, until death."

Dr. Sidney Kaye, Institute of Legal Medicine: "Coffee overindulgence is overlooked many times because the bizarre symptoms may resemble and masquerade as an organic or mental disease....But what a feeling of relief to both physician and patient to see the symptoms completely disappear on the physician's order to stop drinking coffee."

Sanford Bolton, PhD, and Gary Null, M.S., in the Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry: "Caffeinism may result in a syndrome which resembles and may be confused or confounded with true psychotic states. This may lead to misdiagnosis and mistreatment. A question arises from the varied reports of caffeine consumption in psychiatric populations: Does caffeine stimulate psychosis or does psychosis stimulate caffeine consumption?"

Calvin Thrash, MD, Author, Food Allergies Made Simple: "Thousands are in mental institutions today because of no greater matter than that of the use of caffeine. Psychiatrists are now publishing articles indicating that there are numerous cases of depression and anxiety in mental institutions, who need no other treatment than to be taken off caffeine."

Following is the full text of a letter by Dan Stradford published last month on BMJ.com (formerly British Medical Journal), with commentary by psychiatrist and neurologist Stuart Shipko, M.D., founder and director of the Panic Disorder Institute:

"The failure to do full medical screenings on psychiatric patients is one of the greatest areas of neglect in modern medicine. Studies have repeatedly shown for years that psychiatric populations have more medical ailments than non-psychiatric patients. No one disputes this. And most of those same studies also show that a healthy percentage of psychiatric patients are routinely misdiagnosed with mental illness (and often placed on psychotropics for years or for life), when they, in fact, have medical problems causing or exacerbating their psychiatric symptoms. No one disputes this either.

The landmark 1980 study by Richard Hall et al ("Physical Illness Manifesting as Psychiatric Disease", Arch Gen Psychiatry, 1980, 37: 989- 995) found 46% of the psychiatric patients thoroughly examined had physical ailments causing or exacerbating their mental symptoms.

The California legislature was so shocked by this study, it ordered research, headed by Dr. Lorrin Koran of Stanford University, on how to improve the quality of medical exams in psychiatric settings. The result of that study was the "Medical Evaluation Field Manual," which sets a minimal standard for medical screenings and provides an efficient algorithm when full screenings are not practical.

The manual was distributed to all of California's counties in the late 1980s and NONE of them implemented it. A dozen years later, my nonprofit organization, Safe Harbor, has asked for and received a grant to work on getting this manual implemented.

We have posted the Field Manual on the internet at www.alternativementalhealth.com/articles/fieldmanual.htm.

What concerns me is that I--a layman--and a group of volunteers is having to grab the psychiatric profession by the scruff of the neck to get them to examine their own patients! This does not speak well for the profession or for its organizations, such as the American and British Psychiatric Associations....

This medical negligence cannot continue. I would like to issue a call to medical professionals to, once and for all, set and keep minimal medical screening standards for psychiatric patients so that this easily remedied medical neglect exists no more."

Response by Stuart Shipko, M.D., psychiatrist, neurologist, founder and director of the Panic Disorder Institute: "This is so true. A long time ago when I actively practiced general medicine I was the doctor who did physical examinations on patients confined to a mental ward. I found that the labwork showed excessive abnormalities of calcium, sodium and chloride. I diligently worked up these abnormalities, but concluded that the abnormalities were due to problems in blood testing. To present this to the quality assurance committee, I reviewed the charts of the previous 50 admissions and showed the cluster of abnormalities. The response? They wanted to know what my motives were and why I cared. The fact that it was my job to care went over their heads. Medical evaluation of the 'mentally ill' is pretty much nonexistent." BrianinNYC 13:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posting huge chunks of quotes is neither the way to build an encyclopedia nor the way to answer the objection raised. Here is the list of articles to which you have added a reference to 'caffeinism' in the intro:
And finally, there's this little pair of gems. Here is 69.86.46.203's first edit, where he asks "Is it possible to send readers to www.CaffeineWeb.com? This site saved my life." And here is his first edit to this VfD, where he discloses that in fact, CaffeineWeb is "the nonprofit Web site I'm building". Well, golly. Did it save your life before or after you started building it?
comment I apologize. I should have said "The information on this site saved my life." I found it scattered throughout the Web, and it compelled me to see a professional, who told me I was a classic case and to withdraw immediately. I didn't mean to be underhanded. Nor am I interested in any kind of self-promotion. The more evidence I've accumulated--which is being added to my site daily--the more I've shifted the focus of my site from myself to the many studies supporting my conviction that I'm far from alone. I hope you'll keep your Keep vote in light of the experts' testimony, if not mine. :)--BrianinNYC 13:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OK, that does it for me. I was leaning towards "keep the article but give it the massive cleanup it needs and clean up the unreasonable overlinking." This tips the scales over. I'm now changing my vote to Delete and let a real article be written by someone who's not trying to exploit Wikipedia for self-promotion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Despite all the annoying anonymous references and arguments.) Probably needs a redirect from Caffeine addiction. :) — RJH 17:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Arguments and references are the only means I have to communicate the importance and validity of this entry. :)--BrianinNYC 13:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Self-promotion. The vast majority of reference that I can find on caffeinism use the term to mean caffeine addiction, or the (non-psychiatric) symptoms of overdose. The references that I can find that do refer to psychiatric effects of caffeine rarely call it caffeinism. Of the papers I've seen about caffeine-related psychiatric conditions, most are either about caffeine-induced anxiety. The only references to caffeine-induced psychosis that I can see in academic sources are referring to cases of patients who have had their pre-existing schizophrenia exacerbated by caffeine. The only references to bipolar are on caffeine's effects on lithium clearance. Some of these points may be worth adding to Caffeine. -- ascorbic 20:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh! Ok, let's not wander too far from our point (the article), here. The article needs clean up, if it's kept. Is the topic valid? You betcha. Is the term common? Nah. Is the term the preferred term? Probably not. So, what do we do? A discussion of caffeine intoxication, caffeine overdose, and the like should probably be at Caffeine. Therefore, I'd say Merge to Caffeine and redirect there. This way, the discussion and references stay, and we can make the information on the potential danger of over-use easier to find than if we have it at an out-of-the-way title. Geogre 20:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotion. RickK 22:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification' not a second vote. Clearly the user who promulgates this article has some kind of agenda, and the article does need some cleanup. Nevertheless, this is a documented, easily verifiable and legitimate medical term (and spectrum of conditions for which it is the blanket term, including addiction, anxiety disorders, and in the extreme manifestation, psychosis) worthy of its own article, and with a indisputable body of scientific literature. It is most certainly not a neologism, and any effort to delete or redirect would be mistaken. Fawcett5 23:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like coffee--a lot--and this is nothing but an ad caffeinem attack. A NPOV is not even being attempted here. What about all of the benefits of caffeine use? Caffeine makes me feel better about myself as a person. It gives me energy, heightens my sex drive, gives me a overall sense of well-being and confidence. Plus it tastes really good with milk and tons of refined sugar. Unlike vodka, it's really easy to drink in large legal quantities without all of the dangerous physical and social effects, and coffee only improves my driving when the day is done. We must stop this coffee smear and vandalism. Delete, delete, delete! C W Merchant 00:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to preempt any further accusations of self-promotion by agreeing in advance to the total elimination of my Web site, CaffeineWeb.com, from any mention whatsoever in Wikipedia, on any page no matter how relevant my link may be. But I hope that the references to caffeinism, and the main article itself, will stand. The only reason I reference my site (which is nonprofit) is because it's the only site that gathers all these statements about caffeinism in one place. Also, the article is not an attack on caffeine any more than a site about peanut allergy is an attack on peanuts. Many people can ingest caffeine with no apparent effect on their long-term mental health; but many others cannot.--BrianinNYC 20:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable but probably in need of cleaning up but IANADoctor. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, this is borderline. The article needs a serious cleanup and expansion (with more verifiable peer reviewed sources). Megan1967 03:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even more editing in of links to caffeinism:
Comment: Caffeine is a toxin. From [11]

"What purpose in the natural world does the chemical serve?

The answer is that caffeine is part of a plant's "chemical weaponry" to defend itself against predators and competitors. Plants cannot defend themselves with limbs, or run away from danger. Instead, they synthesize chemicals which are toxic to certain life forms. Caffeine is such a chemical; it has potent antibiotic and antifungal powers, and causes sterility in several insects. Also, caffeine permeates the soil which surrounds the plants by the accumulation of fallen leaves and berries, thus inhibiting the growth of competing plants.

However, in doing this, the caffeine plant ultimately kills itself as well. Over many years, the accumulation of caffeine in the soil becomes so great that the toxicity level is high enough to harm the parent plant. It is this that contributes to the degeneration of coffee plantations between the ages of ten and twenty-five years." BrianinNYC 22:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I did go a little overboard, sorry. But I don't think my edits were so far afield. Consider what those trying to sound the alarm about caffeinism are up against (and believe me, I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. I'm a reasonable person who had a horrifying illness and is determined to save others who think their 2-3 cups a day are harmless, while they suffer symptoms of caffeinism).

From Caffeine Blues by clinical nutritionist Stephen Cherniske: "If you were curious about the dangers of caffeine, you would undoubtedly come across a brochure entitled What You Should Know About Caffeine. You would find this ubiquitous brochure on information racks in hospitals, pharmacies, public health offices, or in your doctor's office. It's available throught the mail and on the Internet. What You Should Know About Caffeine is published by the very official-sounding International Food Information Council in Washington, DC. The brochure does not list sponsors or disclose an industry affiliation. When I requested details of industry sponsorship, I received another glossy color brochure that mentioned nothing about which organizations supply the funds to disseminate all this information. After pressing the issue through several phone calls, I finally received a list of IFIC "supporters," including Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola, M&M/Mars Candy, NutraSweet, Nestle, Hershey Foods, Frito-Lay, Proctor & Gamble and the Arco Chemical Company.

"When I asked the IFIC for scientific support for their assertion that 300 milligrams of caffeine was perfectly safe, they sent me a report published in Food and Chemical Toxicity. The authors of this report are both employees of the Coca-Cola Company and members of the National Soft Drink Asociation. As you might expect, the report downplays the effects of caffeine in the American diet, using some interesting techniques.

"For the past eight years I have conducted a systematic review of the world scientific literature on caffeine. This research has taken some real detective work. It's difficult to tell what's going on at first. After all, I drank coffee for over 20 years, simply because I believed like everybody else that coffee, and caffeine, had no adverse health effects.

"I was in for the surprise of my life. The first thing I noticed is that much of the research on coffee was imprecise. The majority of researchers refer to the standard coffee cup as a six-ounce serving, but most people drink from mugs, which contain 12 to 14 ounces or more. That's not to mention convenience store cups, which contain anywhere from 20 to 32 ounces. If you're like most people, you probably consume far more caffeine than you think you do....

"I also began to see that the caffeine issue is rarely taken seriously. Nearly every researcher starts from the assumption that caffeine is okay. Why? Because, consciously or subconsciously, they are influenced by the fact that they themselves depend on coffee. I have visited the offices of hundreds of scientists, professors, and clinicians. The coffee machine is as much a part of their environment as test tubes and computers. Likewise, the journalists who report health news to the public are usually heavy coffee drinkers. I'm not saying these people are dishonest, only that information can be biased by the habits of those who make and break the news."

BrianinNYC 22:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Brian, stop pasting in huge quotes from other people instead of talking with us here and now about the issue at hand. It's rude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think my edits, if lengthy, are about the issue at hand--always and only in response to questions raised by others. Believe me, I'd rather not spend my time pasting or typing in quotes from medical studies. I don't see any other way to respond than to quote experts on the subject. --BrianinNYC
  • Delete. This condition is not medically recognized. This appears to be an attempt to manipulate WP to gain web traffic for a quack medical website. Quale 08:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'd like to repeat what I said above, that I'd be happy to delete all reference to CaffeineWeb.com anywhere in Wikipedia. The only reward I get from people visiting my site is knowing it may save someone who is suffering from caffeinism without realizing it (as I and many others have). Also, before casting a Delete vote, or calling mine a quack site, please look at the credentials of the doctors I quote. --BrianinNYC
  • Weak keep. The original version might have been original research, but the current article seems to be pretty much encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 13:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. DSM IV is rife with caffeine-induced conditions, but the present page is a POV fork, and the link has been dumped endlessly on other pages. It helps pointing out that most people who drink coffee don't go mad. JFW | T@lk 13:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and Brian has said enough. Any long postings on this page from him will lead to my vote being changed to delete. JFW | T@lk 14:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, what the flip? Delete as extremely spurious. Radiant_* 14:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Worthy of an article. (There's plenty of source material that could be used to make this into a splendid article). While the caffeine article already discusses toxicity and abuse, those issues alone are notable enough for an article. HKT 17:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my view: The article should be rewritten and probably renamed. Toxicity and abuse are big issues, but whether caffeine intake can lead to a condition or syndrome uniquely called Caffeinism is highly questionable. How accepted is it in the medical community that caffeine intake leads to a very specific set of symptoms unique from other conditions?
  • Delete. I almost speedy'd this, but it seems like it is not something worthy of it's own article. I would argue for a delete and a minor mention in Caffeine. Wikibofh 04:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But clean it up a bit. -- unsigned vote by DamianFinol
  • Keep - I personally found this article very useful, although perhaps more information on it would make it much better! -- unsigned vote by 212.139.17.203 (talk · contribs); this is this user's sole Wikipedia edit.
  • Delete. This can be part of caffeine Joey.dale 03:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete drini ☎ 17:41, 2 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 08:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klezmer Conservatory Band[edit]

Entire content is "Great Klezmer band, check Oy Chanukah" Denni☯ 00:42, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete, much as I love Klezmer--Sophitus 01:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that somebody has improved it--Sophitus 14:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 02:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This band does appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC; it has gone on national tours and released seven albums on a significant independent label (Rounder Records). Unfortunately, this article does nothing to support that. No vote at this time. --Metropolitan90 02:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has an allmusic.com entry which indicates a notable group and lists eleven albums. I've made the article into a decent stub. Gamaliel 03:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gamaliel. Kappa 03:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if by the close of this VfD the article has supporting information, delete otherwise. Chris talk back 03:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets Wikimusic project guidelines with 11 albums including seven on a notable indepedent label and toured nationally. Their Allmusic.com article[12] notes that they featured in a 1988 documentary and worked on projects with Joel Grey and the American Repertory Theatre. Our klezmer article notes their significance. I have expanded the article further. Capitalistroadster 06:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and now a decent stub. Why wasn't this just cleaned up in the first place rather than listed for deletion? Leithp 08:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because, oh, I don't know, maybe after a couple of beers the average teen feels like writing a single sentence but can get no further. Anyway, it's good now. Keep. -- Hoary 12:18, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Keep noisy klezmer. Klonimus 19:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Note, though, that the original substub would have been a valid speedy delete. We are fortunate that folks here cleaned it up, but the project would not have suffered from the lack of "Great band check it out." Geogre 20:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - concur with Geogre. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as User:Gamaliel expanded it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 WP:CFD CDC (talk) 21:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Scientific neologisms[edit]

Category is pointless, vitually all the new scientific terms of the last 50 years could be put in this category. And then....what's the point?!--Deglr6328 00:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Leanna Coolness[edit]

Vanity of the worst description Denni☯ 00:45, 2005 May 21 (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) 21:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee Harris[edit]

Vanity Denni☯ 00:54, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable vanity not verifiable ! --IncMan 11:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure if it's vanity or attempt to annoy the target but either way inappropriate for wikipedia. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This peach-fuzzed vaniteer sadly has no place in a compendium of articles about famous people and things. 24.4.127.164 11:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable on its face. DES 16:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mark to future[edit]

text dump from http://www.algorithmics.com/marktofuture/mtf2.shtml Denni☯ 01:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Spam, text dump. Delete. I have marked the article as copyvio. - Mike Rosoft 06:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Irpen 06:39, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:43, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

DaneDelling[edit]

Nonesense! It's still funny to look at the picture. Svest 01:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 02:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nateji77 06:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to me the pic is disgusting --IncMan 11:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy, anyone? Lupin 14:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, of course, but not on its first day on VfD. The photo needs to go to IFD (or, well, it, too, could suffer a mysterious accident in the night). Geogre 20:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lame joke. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Gilchrist[edit]

Vanity Denni☯ 01:10, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • At least it's only the truth instead of wild claims. Kind of refreshing. Delete. --W(t) 02:08, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt to establish notability. Harro5 02:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Che Fox 16:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete modest vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, and no indication likely to be expanded to notability. DES 17:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brian Sim[edit]

Patent silliness. Denni☯ 01:13, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete this total nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Can't speedy it. Doesn't meet the speedy criteria. Denni☯ 02:13, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
      • Then we need some extra criteria so crap like this are valid speedies. Chris talk back 03:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure it does: Very short articles with little or no context. Classic example. Speedy. android↔talk 03:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Harro5 02:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, this is speediable --nixie 04:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Little or no content. Sjakkalle 11:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hmm.. Red Moon , I think the author is mistaken . It must be Planet Mars . (poor joke) --IncMan 11:49, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just a note of comment, though. There is no rule about speedy deleting things on VfD, but I'd like to encourage admins on VfD to not speedy delete on the first day of a VfD. 99% of the time, the article will still be a heaping pile of speedy delete material the 2nd day, but we don't want to kill a potential article. I also agree with Denni: it really isn't quite a criterion #1 speedy delete (and I'm as trigger happy with criterion #1 as anyone around, I think). I'd kill it as a hoax/prank. Geogre 20:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete beginning of a fiction novel. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not factual. may be a joke, but in any case not appropriate for wikipedia as it stands. DES 17:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nahuatl dictionary[edit]

Easy. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is. So, transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Now it'll take a while before all of those are transwikied, but I just wanted to come to a decision about this in the mean time so it can be deleted then. --Dmcdevit 01:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to VfD in most cases, just slap on a {{move to wiktionary}} and rfc if a dispute arises. Anyway, move to wiktionary seems like a fine choice here. --W(t) 01:53, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • Right, but this is to determine the future of the article after transwiki. So it doesn't go through VfD again, let's specifically vote Transwiki and delete. --Dmcdevit 03:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to Wiktionary and delete as per Dmcdevit. Leithp 08:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki and then delete Halibutt 10:49, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete--MarSch 13:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Neutralitytalk 02:39, May 27, 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) 21:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pauline Tookey[edit]

Personal remeniscences. Denni☯ 01:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete --W(t) 02:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete Nateji77 06:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in simple words , an encyclopedia is no place for a auto-biography . --IncMan 11:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly an interesting reflection but also a copyvio [13] and inappropriate for wikipedia. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rosie meatball[edit]

Unverifiable. No Google hits. Denni☯ 01:31, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete --W(t) 02:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 02:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Likely a hoax. Harro5 03:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as being utter crap. If "being utter crap" isn't a valid speedy candidate, it needs to be. Chris talk back 04:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as nonsense. --nixie 04:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Don't feed the trolls --Bobbagum 20:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Denni☯ 16:01, 2005 May 22 (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 06:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Shadrach[edit]

Entirely free of meaningful content. Denni☯ 01:34, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete --W(t) 02:02, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • Keep, nice job on the makeover. --W(t) 03:10, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, obvious vanity: There is a man in Orange County, California who's name is Sadrac and is considered to be one of the best looking Male Model to come out of Orange County. Megan1967 02:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I totally reworked the article. Notable Biblical character, among other things. Frankly, I'm stunned that we didn't have a Shadrach article already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, great article. Kappa 03:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A disambig page with, count 'em, ZERO links! What good does this serve other than to add some trivial facts about a word? Harro5 04:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice job on the expansion. Tufflaw 06:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nicely expanded. NatusRoma 06:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done Andrew. Capitalistroadster 07:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good save - keep. I've added a few more links, and intriguingly we have an article on Abednego, but none of Meshach. Andrew...? Grutness...wha? 08:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informative one . The first few versions were stupid though .--IncMan 11:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Harro5 --nixie 14:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks great now. --Fazdeconta 15:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good save-- Keep Notable Bible. Klonimus 19:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but there are three characters, and they're always together in the Bible. I'm wondering if treating them separately is profitable. Perhaps a write up at Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and redirects from each name? At least I'm not aware of the three men having a backstory. Geogre 02:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep now the article looks fine Yuckfoo 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Because when I need to find trivial facts about a word, I go to Wikipedia. Go editors, down with deleters. Dystopos 06:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--MarSch 13:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article as it stands is reasonable. DES 17:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minnesconsigan[edit]

Joke

Quote: Thus far nonexistent sovereign nation created by the secession of the former U.S. States of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. It looks like a joke. Pavel Vozenilek 01:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, silly. --W(t) 02:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 02:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A joke or very, very poor speculation. Somebody didn't bother to look at a county-by-county breakdown of election results in MN, WI, and MI... android↔talk 03:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already removed from Template:U.S. regions. WikiProject U.S. Regions' has enough on its plate with real regions let alone fictious ones.-JCarriker 09:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. BJAODN maybe? --Angr/comhrá 10:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simple as that .--IncMan 12:02, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously Delete. --Fazdeconta 16:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:-) and delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's legitimate to list Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota as a region of the U.S. (like New England) but the content is goofy. It needs a massive edit at the very least. Deletion would let us start over. Quicksilvre (Talk) 15:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Phvkkage[edit]

Self-admittedly non-notable. Denni☯ 01:49, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Megan. Harro5 04:04, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree. Vanity. --jet57 (u∴t) 10:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 22:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Compy A90 Comix[edit]

A web comic. None of the 45 google results [14] seem to indicate fame or influence, most are mirrors of wp. Kappa 16:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Gate Records[edit]

Appears to be a vanity promo. Check out the homepage; it's hosted on myspace.com. Emiao 01:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone provides evidence of notability. --W(t) 02:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 02:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 09:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calcline[edit]

Advertisement, not notable enough to be encyclopedic. Delete. Sholtar 16:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Not encyclopedic even if cleaned up. Damging to Wikipedia. Eixo 16:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's close to speedy delete for spam, but probably a proper VfD case (where I doubt anyone can conclude anything but that it's advertising). Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. Geogre 02:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing of value here. Che Fox 03:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erick Linares[edit]

Appears to be vanity; see The Gate Records as well. Emiao 01:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same as for The Gate Records, delete. --W(t) 02:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a notable figure, substub article that contains no information except what you knew when you hit the link. This is one of those articles created by the overuse of links on all proper nouns. Geogre 02:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trevor Tangen[edit]

Smells like teen vanity Denni☯ 01:52, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsense. --W(t) 02:05, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible attack page. Megan1967 02:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as personal attack wrapped in complete nonsense. Jonathunder 03:29, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too bad if you're Trevor, you got mocked Wiki-style! Harro5 04:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Moronia attempting a libel page. Valid speedy delete. Geogre 02:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certainly. Samaritan 02:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Members whose relatives have known Lenin[edit]

Vanity. Denni☯ 02:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • As vanity goes it's rather interesting though. Delete. --W(t) 02:09, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, family vanity, unverifiable. Megan1967 02:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it because if it is kept we could have hundreds of pages for Wikipedia members whose relatives knew other historical figures. Crotalus horridus 02:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I tagged this for a speedy (per a very short article[] with little or no context), but apparently no one noticed or agreed with me... Delete. I can only imagine the ramifications of allowing an article like this to remain. List of Wikipedians who are exactly six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon, List of Wikipedians who have met at least one President, List of Wikipedians who bumped into James Woods at the mall... android↔talk 03:22, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain to me why administrators are not allowed to apply Common Sense and speedy these? There might not be anything explicitly covering these, and borderline cases may be an issue, but I look at this article and the borders are miles away. Chris talk back 04:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because not even all administrators trust all sysops with the power of speedy deletion. Meelar (talk) 06:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would have speedied --nixie 04:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know Lenin. He made me a meatball sub at Subway the other day. Delete. 23skidoo 05:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the above. I also doubt it could be maintained and verified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely knowing Lenin is not a reason for notability. Being a relative of someone who knew Lenin even less so. Sjakkalle 08:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prattery--Doc Glasgow 10:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Which Lenin are they talking about ? The Russian Leader or the one in my class . --IncMan 12:10, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete at an absolute minimum, this (and most potential additions to it) would be unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and flog the user who created it. — Phil Welch 20:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or userfy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I must have missed this when it was tagged. Since we're all related, somewhere and somehow, all Wikipedia's members relatives include Lenin (and Lenon, and the Czar). Geogre 02:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, completely idiosyncratic non-topic, vanity, no potential to become encyclopedic, original research. Not everyday you get all four in the same article. JYolkowski // talk 15:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a stupid idea on my part sorry for the inconveniance this caused Klingoncowboy4
  • Well, what can I say --IncMan 01:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - So couple of my relatives supposedly lived in the same town Lenin was rumored to have visited. So what? - Skysmith 07:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as personal attack. Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Haller[edit]

Personal attack. Denni☯ 02:10, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 02:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another speedy candidate--nixie 04:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal attack. Nateji77 06:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, attack page. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 07:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a personal attack. JYolkowski // talk 18:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oopsie! Now how did that happen? It seems to have suffered a fatal accident. (Libel page/vandalism, gone away.) Geogre 02:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 22:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brown's Landing[edit]

It's a non-notable restaurant, basically an ad. 26 googles. Delete it if someone can't find something significant about it. RJFJR 02:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not notable, but still manages to make me realise I'm hungry. Delete --W(t) 02:14, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 02:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bluemoose 10:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. I'm still going to sort the stub, just to get it off that page. --Jemiller226 18:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Courtnie nowick[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 02:31, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • No doubt! Delete. Svest 02:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another example of ""lower case surname = nonsense". Harro5 04:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though I believe the law should read "vanity" not "nonsense" 8-) Chris talk back 04:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks notability. Edward 10:05, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete: This one is pretty lysurgic. She has had a happy life with her boyfriend. She was born on May 17, 2005, and now she's an adolescent. Wow. I just hope the author of this one doesn't read one of the Time Cube articles or something. Geogre 02:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious vanity, hardly even worth a blog entry. Clearly non-notable. DES 17:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew 2:16[edit]

Do individual Bible verses need articles of their own? Crotalus horridus 02:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC) This also applies to Matthew 2:1 through Matthew 2:15.[reply]

  • If verifiable and important things "don't need articles of their own", they can be merged into some larger unit without going through Vfd. However this material is lengthy and informative enough to need its own article. Keep. Kappa 02:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per previous votes on bible passages, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Exodus 30:23. Megan1967 02:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that that one was simply a quote without any analysis. How about previous vote for deletion on Bible passages Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20 ? Kappa 02:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are currently 16 different articles for the first 16 verses of Matt. 2. If these are all allowed to remain, this means that articles analyzing every single verse in the Bible would be allowed. That would easily be thousands of articles for Bible verses alone. And then people would be doing the same analyses on verses in the Koran, Book of Mormon, and so forth. This would cause havoc. That is why I think these should be deleted. Crotalus horridus 02:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You failed to notice the 25 articles on the verses of Matthew 1 and the 18 completed ones on John 20. I guess the havoc they are creating is just a very quiet and hard to notice one. - SimonP 03:02, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep we just debated Bible verse last week at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20 and a few weeks before that at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16. Both of these discussions saw a fairly strong majority in favour of keeping them. - SimonP 03:02, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into one article on the book of Matthew, or Matthew Chapter 2. This goes for every verse page. Harro5 03:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles on individual verses of the Bible are quite acceptable. Much can be/has been written and said about individual verses, enough to create an article for many of them. Quite possible to create rich annotated articles for most passages in the New Testament. -- Decumanus 04:01, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and Redirect. Isn't this part of the Wikipedia project just a verse-by-verse annotated copy of two public domain translations of the bible? Wikibooks takes annotated works. Leave the redirect as a interproject navigation aid for those who don't know of Wikibooks. The use of the exact same two references on so many verses gives me a copyvio scare, though. Unfocused 04:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both versions are in the public domain. -- Decumanus 05:45, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
      • Both versions of the bible, YES, both books used to annotate? NO. I think the annotations may be copyvio, not the bible verses. --Unfocused 18:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any evidence to back up this accusation? -- Decumanus 07:06, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
          • There was no accusation. I said copyvio scare. I did not claim that there is a copyvio, but I am by nature cautious. When I next make a trip to the library, I will check to see if these titles are available to compare. --Unfocused 00:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So in other words, as of right now you have no evidence for your statement "I think the annotations may be copyvio"? Have you asked the author of the articles if he ripped them off? -- Decumanus 00:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Extreme Keep, and I don't do "extreme keeps" often. Some of these articles on individual Bible verses are amazing -- they cite great works of scholarship and really understand the text well. Having articles on individual Bible verses or individual Ayat from the Qur'an would "cause havoc?" That's so wrongheaded that I don't even know where to start! Just a simple quote of a verse should be deleted, but if you read this article, you'll see that it deals with scholarship and really gives the reader an understanding of the context. Articles like these are what make Wikipedia great. --Zantastik 06:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Book of Matthew or delete. I see no point in individual articles for every Bible verse. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: scholarly commentary on a work of literature dominating Western civilization for the last couple of thousand years is a more valid subject than Pokemon monsters, fictional kings from Tolkien, or Klingon warships, all of which are much more likely to be forgotten and have lost any relevance to people a 100 years from now than the Bible. Uppland 07:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative and interesting. As long as the articles on individual verses have this level of information, I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be kept. There is too much for them all to be merged into articles on books, and most of the time too much even for articles on chapters. Articles go well beyond quotes. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Jonel 07:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article because it has a lot more scholarly information than many stubs out there. -dozenist 10:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Number of verses in the Bible 31,273 (depending on version) number of high schools in the US alone 24,600 (1996 figs). Relative cultural impacts of average Bible verse vs. average high school?? --Doc Glasgow 10:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've unbalanced your comparison. How about "average individual bible verse" versus "average high school"? Unfocused 00:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this informative article. Wikipedia is not paper - I hope that we will get articles this good or better on all the verses of Bible, Qur'an, etc. --G Rutter 13:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Zantastik. - Jersyko 14:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- In my opinion, a complete article, as opposed to a simple reproduction of a verse in Bible, should qualify for a Keep. This applies to similar other works of same importance. I think that the possible number of articles arising out of this shall not deluge wikipedia, rather it will increase its worth. Verses in religious texts like the Bible and others comparable to the Bible are finte, say few thousand. On the other hand, just to take an example, there are 45000 asterioids in our solar system - out of which about 3000 merit attention. There are trillions of other celestial objects, and they are being discovered each day - an article on each one of the important discovery shall surely appear in wikipedia, but articles on Bible verses shall remain limited, as new verses cannot be invented or discovered. Please keep the article so that one who knows little about the significance of any particular verse of the Bible may come to wikipedia to understand the matter. --Bhadani 18:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect this article and the next two with Matthew 2:16-18. If the article expands a fair bit before end of VfD, change that to a keep. JYolkowski // talk 18:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every bible verse article that has commentary. Klonimus 19:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all verses of all notable holy books, for the same reason that we have Rambot articles. (I actually don't know that reason, but just assume it applies here too.) If I saw a reference to a Bible/Koran/Upanishad/whatever verse somewhere, I'd like to be able to look it up on WP and see not just one translation but many, as well as possibly commentary. Nickptar 01:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain This is covered at Massacre of the Innocents, needless to say: if it had no such tag, it wouldn't have been encyclopedia-worthy. I look forward with pleasure to an entry on each of the 114 sayings in the Gospel of Thomas. And on for each chapter of James Joyce's Ulysses. --Wetman 01:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --I agree with Crotalus, 165.247.89.80 01:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- individual bible passages with articles of this length do deserve to exist. freestylefrappe 02:04, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete-- There are multiple problems here. First, while the scholarship on the verse is fine by me, the article is lodged at a verse name, where it will never, ever be sought. This allows for someone with a POV interpretation of scriptures to use this, essentially, as reinforcement by being the only one to like to Matthew 2:16 instead of [[Book of Matthew]] 2:16. If there is a Wikigloss project, this belongs there, but not in name space. The scholarship should be at Massacre of the Innocents, and I have a sinking feeling that, in fact, it came from there as the product of an edit war. Regardless, it can't stay as it is. Geogre 02:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if you search for Book of Matthew, there are links to each of the chapters of the book, which in turn leads to links to the verses. Saying that it will never, ever be sought as simply Matthew 2:16 is dubious, but even assuming you are correct, a searcher could find the article in the way I've described. If someone uses it in a POV way, we should change what they write to make it NPOV, but the possibility of someone using it improperly is not a reason to delete this article in the first place. - Jersyko 15:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Individual verses don't need articles. Each book already has one; if there's anything to be said, let it be said there. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per Jonel, et al. Dystopos 06:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good article on a notable subject. Capitalistroadster 23:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like a good article. Christopher Parham 00:38, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete individual verses dont need separate articles. JamesBurns 10:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot of them, individual verses dont need separate articles. Radiant_* 14:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A famous book and verse. 24.4.127.164 11:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there seems enough material to warrant an article.--MarSch 14:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dsmdgold 09:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Nonencyclopedic. While I find a verse by verse analysis of the Bible helpful at times, Wikipedia is not the place for it. In this context, the Bible is just another work of literature. Would we include a sentence by sentence analysis of War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, or Great Expectations? Xcali 16:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes casted as of Friday, May 27, 2005[edit]

  • Keep 20
  • Delete 11
  • Merge into one article on the book of Matthew 4 to 6 (unclear what two users desire)
  • Transwiki and Redirect 2
  • Abstain 1
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 as nonsense. Crotalus horridus 02:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Western civilzation[edit]

Read this first: http://www.meta-library.net/events/stanford-frame.html

  • Unsigned comment by article author Serapion. Denni☯ 02:08, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter crap and nonsense. Harro5 02:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article isn't even coherent. Based on my understanding of policy it should be deleted immediately. Crotalus horridus 02:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it does indeed look speediable as nonsense. Antandrus (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted as nonsense. SWAdair | Talk 02:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Flumpkin[edit]

I can't find any evidence of this use, probable joke. --W(t) 02:41, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

[15] ...keep

  • Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unconfirmable slang mgstone 2:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this deserves to live, they can look after it at Wiktionary. Harro5 04:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef. (Unless someone can imagine writing 5 paragraphs about this act.) Deco 00:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This was useful. I can see somebody writing about this.AnonUser:68.193.37.52 2:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy hopkins[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 02:48, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • I think we're back to "lower case surname == vanity" again. Delete Chris talk back 03:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Howabout1 03:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. I think you might be on to something to the "lower case surname = vanity" thing, but remember the article usually has to be anon-written to be crap. Harro5 03:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it's known sometimes as Geogre's Law, after the user who made the first public statement on it ;-) Chris talk back 04:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Surprisingly, not as bad a failure of Geogre's Law as I expected. This is an ad for a guy doing gigs. I hope he has supportive audiences who throw money at his feet, but Wikipedia is not an advertising site. Geogre 02:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Punkas[edit]

It's not advertising. It's not the opposite. Apart from that, I just wonder if it is notable. Svest 03:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

  • Delete. It is advertising, and it's not notable. How many radio stations have articles on Wikipedia? Answer: not enough to give Punkas one. Well done on this re-write: Keep. Harro5 20:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • If its most prominent asset is not its output but the forums, then it's not up to the mark. Delete away ... Chris talk back 04:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The answer to Harro5's question is: A LOT. See Category:Radio stations in California, just for starters. RickK 22:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. It has forums. Woo-hoo. The site for Black and Decker Toasters has forums. As for radio stations, we have a lot of stations by call letters. I wish we didn't, but we do. This doesn't appear to be one, and it's not NPOV, and it shows no notability. Geogre 02:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a webguide. Leanne 05:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable with ca 6k google hits--MarSch 14:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is written as an attack, and is probably not notable even if re-written to NPOV. DES 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've completely redone the Punkas article. I hope you have the time to check it. It may not be as much a candidate for deletion as it previously was. Thanks.--McDogm 20:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good job McDogm. I just think that the expressions unrelenting opposition and unrelentingly liberal would be ok w/o a bold format. Chees -- Svest 00:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mystic key[edit]

Ridiculously trivial and entirely non-encyclopaedic. A minor item in one game. – Seancdaug 04:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nonsense, and just plain sad. Harro5 04:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Key is already mentioned in the Final Fantasy I article, and it doesn't need an article of its own. What is there to say about it, really? Firebug 04:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig to articfles about the millions of Mystic Keys in various places. Only kidding. If this is already in the parent article, redirect if someone's likely to look for it, delete otherwise. Chris talk back 04:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, content duplication. Megan1967 04:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicate content. Nateji77 15:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and duplicate. And I was hoping it would be a reference to Scriabin so I could vote keep. Antandrus (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Vote undecisive: d/k=5:3, but the article has been seriously rewritten

Latino American Dawah Organization[edit]

This was listed as a copyvio but the author owns the copyright. As is this page is a personal essay, Delete --nixie 04:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --JuanMuslim 16:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC) I think that the article needs to be userfied. For example, I would like to strip the author's name and then edit the article so that it comes from a 3rd person, objective point of view. The article is also too long. The original article was written for an entirely different audience. Most well-known, accomplished Muslims are simply not listed, because they aren't very vocal or crazy. Radical groups, such as the Nation of Islam and Taliban, are listed but mainstream Muslim organizations, such as ISNA or ICNA, are not. However, they are known among all American Muslims. I plan to help in that regard. You can learn more about LADO at http://www.latinodawah.org/about LADO and various LADO members have been mentioned in several articles in a number of publications: http://hispanicmuslims.com/articles[reply]
  • Total rewrite. I'm not convinced by the "not notable" line, although I could possibly be swayed. I mean, have you guys seen some of the groups in Organization stubs lately? How notable must a group be? A more fruitful approach might be the writing of a new stub comparable to Alianza Islámica – which is straightforward, informative, and not long-winded. But I would certainly agree that almost none of the material currently in the article is worth keeping, for our purposes. QuartierLatin1968 21:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The new stub provided by copyright holder (viz JuanMuslim) looks fine as far as I'm concerned. The word "notable" doesn't even appear on the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and there are lots of relatively small groups that have articles or stubs on Wikipedia. LADO is worth 724 google hits, not even counting misspellings. At worst, the current stub is harmless. QuartierLatin1968 23:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay. Leanne 05:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been editting the article to conform to Wiki standards. Thank you for your patience. I was looking at the organization's stub. Wow, the descriptions are short. I didn't realize that. Please feel free to edit the LADO posting. JuanMuslim --JuanMuslim 17:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've editted the entry on Latino American Dawah Organization (LADO) as best as possible, addressing the concerns some of you have addressed. Please look over the entry to see if you still want to keep your current vote. I still welcome other users to edit the entry further. Thank you for your patience. I've changed my vote from userfy to keep.JuanMuslim --JuanMuslim 04:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. rewritten. mikka (t) 15:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Dan_heys[edit]

Page is non-encyclopedic, poorly written, and has no significance as an article

  • The article should be deleted without debate. User:splintercellguy 04:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that this is the user's first edit, although he has since gone on to make some useful edits. RickK 22:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Harro5 04:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he says it best himself - "Dan Heys is most known for nothing. He has so far done absolutely shit with his infinite amount of time." Delete with extreme prejudice. Tufflaw 06:25, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one would think a vanity page would be more positive... --TimPope 07:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nateji77 07:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sigh with ennui. Geogre 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Thank God this page was here. I had to do a report on Dan Heys and this got me an A+!

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dudemonkey[edit]

Not notable. -- Svest 05:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 05:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism bordering on patent nonsense --TimPope 07:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense bordering on neologism. Nateji77 07:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quedar_bien[edit]

Text is not notable and unencyclopedic. Page should be deleted. --splintercellguy 05:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had to read it a couple of times to understand it, but I take it that this is a spanish phrase. Unencyclopedic in any case. Leithp 11:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary Stancel 14:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a Spanish phrase that would be useful in the Spanish WP, if the article were worth it. Sarg 14:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Accessory Before the Act[edit]

Delete. Dicdef, and not an accurate one - this isn't really a legal term. Tufflaw 06:04, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Accomplice —Wahoofive (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. The Accomplice article mentions accessories and has a link to Accessory, which is a German rock band. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good catch - The Accomplice article had some major inaccuracies which I removed, so no more link to Deutschland rockers. Tufflaw 03:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is already a word that refers to someone who is an accesory before the act (of a crime) and that is "conspirator" or "co-conspirator." --Fazdeconta 16:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a legal term, certainly in England. It is now probably an historical relict, but I vould vote for re-direct to Accomplice in case someone find this term in an older book and needs to know what it means. --Simon Cursitor 07:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was at one time an important legal term, and still is in some jurisdictions, i think. It is not identical with "conspirator". Howver the current articel is inaccurate and incomplete. Keep and rewrite. DES 17:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the pages Accessory (legal term) and Accessory (disambiguation) and moved the old Accessory page to Accessory (band). I have also fixed the appropriate links. I would like to make Accessory Before the Act into a simple redirect to Accessory (legal term), which now fully explains accesories both before and after the act, and how they differ from accomplices and conspiritors. I didn't actually make the change to a redirect, because I am not sure if this violates the rule against "moving or blanking" the page on the VfD list, but I did edit it to leave only a see link to Accessory (legal term). DES 16:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should specify where this is considered a legal term, if at all (someone said England?) This isn't a term used in the United States at all that I am aware of (I've been practicing criminal law for six years and I've never heard that term used). Tufflaw 20:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think that in the US the term is mostly of historical interest, and it was always more common in the UK and the commonwealth. A current refernce seems to indiacte that it is still in use in New Zealand. Even in the UK I think the terms "before the act" and "after the act" are now less commonly used they they were 50-150 years ago. I can't offhand documet specifc dates of usage. Do you mean that the redirect page should specify usage, or that this page should not be a simple redirect? or do you mean that the page on Accessory (legal term), should include this information? I would tend to favor the latter. DES 21:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note towards the end of Accessory (legal term), in an attempt to clarify usage. I hope this deals with User:Tufflaw's issue. DES 22:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. Guess I was wrong, although I never heard this term in law school or ever in any of the jurisdictions I've worked in. I would note that the article title is for "act" and not "fact", but regardless good job on finding all that stuff. I think this should still be deleted insomuch as it's still the wrong title. I'll create Accessory Before the Fact and Accessory After the Fact and redirect to the new Accessory page in case anyone is looking for those specific terms. Tufflaw 05:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue with that outcome. DES 13:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ActivAction.ca[edit]

Delete. Advertising, non-notable. You know you're in trouble when a google search on an entire domain name returns only 31 hits. Tufflaw 06:10, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: It might have been significant, but this is very strange. The site was made by the Yellow Pages of Canada (should be big), but it was a flop, and they pulled the plug? Odd footnote to Internet history. Geogre 02:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arch0wl.com[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, website. Tufflaw 06:22, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 06:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, nor the biographer of screen names. Geogre 02:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this caca. --SPUI (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Get rid of it. dj HaQ 14:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arch0wl promotes his website on everything, yet he still has less than 1,000 members. Please stop this guy. Draigun 17:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Written by 207.69.4.230 and was changed by 207.69.12.203.
  • Delete. Not notable, and it looks like someone's removing the VFD notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 17:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

UCLA Chinese Students Association[edit]

A campus club, not notable. See also UCLA Taiwanese American Union. Delete. Emiao 06:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Newt Gingrich. -- Scott eiπ 23:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Marianne Ginther[edit]

Can Wikipedia afford having articles about members of families of people listed in WP. Do we have articles about Maradona's wife, Clint Eastwood's grandmother, Birju Maharaj's aunt?! Maybe if those members of family are notable for having a title or doing something! -- Svest 06:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)Wiki me up&#153;

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. -- Scott eiπ 23:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

List of Dacian words[edit]

Hmm... Well I fear that there will be a lot of opposition, as this is a frequently edited article, but it had to be said sometime: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a list of words and their translations into English. In fact, I think it's even a bad title, as it's really like, as RickK suggested, a "List of possible Dacian cognates to words in the Romanian language" or something like that. In any case, the editors work need not be lost, they should just spend their time transwikiing the article to wiktionary, so that it can be deleted --Dmcdevit 07:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Note, this article has become a redirect following a page move. I suggest that we delete the pointless redirect (no one will be looking for "list of ...") but keep the new encyclopedic article at Romanian substratum words which excludes the list. --Dmcdevit 08:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Shorten the list, expand the text. It cannot be incorporated in the Dacian language article, because we can't just say 100% that all the words are Dacian. This article deals with words of substratum and probable substratum words in the Romanian language, so it is an article on its own. The only problem is the long list, which can be shortened. There is an amount of text, and the text can be expanded easily, since many points aren't covered. This will lead to a name change, with the Talk Page also being kept & moved to the new name. Decius 07:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example of what I propose, I've removed the entire list. The list is not that important, but the article is, and it does not require a list. Decius 07:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, that move was a bit uncalled for. Did you read the vfd notice? "Please do not blank, merge, or move this article" (my emphasis). Anyway, you are making a mistake about deleting that list, unless that means you are going to put it into Wiktionary. It's a great resource, just not encyclopedic. Otherwise I agree with the renaming, but there's no need for a redirect to that nonsearchable name, and the six links can be fixed. --Dmcdevit 07:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have many articles on subtopics only reachable through links in other articles, as nobody would search for that particular title. I don't think that is a problem, as these are articles people would only be expected to continue to after reading the main articles. Anyway the VfD notice should be reinserted and the link fixed, unless Dmcdevit decides to withdraw the nomination. Uppland 07:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should have said there's no need for a redirect from that useless ("list of ...") name. Current location is good. Which is why I don't know what to do with the tag, because my nomination is only for the old location which should be deleted now, and not the new one. --Dmcdevit 08:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a problem. The new article is a Wikipedia article relating to the Romanian language. The Wiktionary version was already created by Uncle G some months ago. He listed all the words that were on the list onto Wiktionary. I'll find the link. Decius 07:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah... I see it now. I'll admit I had searched Wiktionary to see if these articles were there before nominating, but was looking for Dacian words, when they are listed only as Romanian words with Dacian derivations.
  • Keep present article at Romanian substratum words: the subject as such is encyclopedic. I also don't see any problem with a short, annotated list of sample words, as long as the list doesn't dominate the article. Uppland 07:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whats Dacian for "keep"? Klonimus 19:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the Wiktionary list compiled with care by Uncle G: [16]. Decius 08:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would we do without him? --Dmcdevit 08:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twatwaffle[edit]

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Twatwaffle/2005-05-21.

dicdef neologism Randwicked 17:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article apparently of different content to original deleted article. I've reactivated this page, don't know if there's a way to start a new one.

  • Delete: more content for the much-awaited UrbanWiktionary.com JDoorjam 19:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy if it's recreated. Ben-w 19:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dicdefs don't belong here. I suggest that this be put on Wictionary, if anything. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:49, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

RFA Fort Rosalie (A186)[edit]

Article does not establish notability, contains a large empty table with no information which suggests such information is difficult to verify --TimPope 07:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand or delete Nateji77 07:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have tried adding a few figures to the table from [17] and [18], and hope this is a valid stub now, even though I see that it still needs more expansion. I think navy ships are usually kept. Sjakkalle 08:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a Royal Navy ship that participated in a war, looks notable to me. Leithp 11:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly notable. Kappa 11:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It is sub-stub that it is true, but it is an encyclopaedic subject. For example, run a Google search on "RFA Fort Rosalie" and there are 543 results, although a number of those are Wikipedia mirrors. A naval auxiliary with nearly 30 years' service certainly qualifies for the Wikipedia. David Newton 12:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see why it was listed, but the article currently in place is very useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Big ship. Klonimus 19:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sjakkale's version and hopefully it can be further expanded. Well done Sjakkale. Capitalistroadster 21:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Schlock Mercenary. -- Scott eiπ 07:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Howard Tayler[edit]

Vanity bio of artist notable only for his webcomic, which already has a very lengthy article. ←Hob 09:02, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Keep. If his web-comic is notable enough for an entry then he is as well. Leithp 11:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since his webcomic's article is already very lengthy, it will be best separate. Kappa 13:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, he has done nothing other than write the webcomic, I can't see how these approx 200 words can't possibly fit in the comics article--nixie 14:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Schlock Mercenary. Leithp's reasoning is specious RickK 23:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why? Were I interested in this webcomic I might look up Wikipedia for biographical information on the creator. I would expect to find it on a seperate page to Schlock Mercenary. I agree that the article as it stands leaves a lot to be desired, but that's not a reason for deletion. Leithp 10:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that logic, we should have a bio page for every webcomic artist. Look, the guy has done one comic strip, and if we merge the articles, then you will still be able to find the info by searching for his name. Although I can't think why you would need to do that, since there is an even more detailed bio page on the Schlock Mercenary website. You might "expect" to find separate articles for all kinds of things but that doesn't mean we create them. And I'm pretty sure this fails the verifiability test: as far as I know, except for his co-authorship of a software book, there is no source for any of this information except the bio page on Tayler's own site. ←Hob 15:36, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
        • By that logic, we should be deleting Gary Larson and other "real" comic artists who are only (popularly) known for one major comic work. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh come on now. I didn't say bios for single-title artists are out of the question; I just said they're not mandatory, as Leithp's reasoning implied. Gary Larson is unquestionably famous, and other people have written about him; we aren't just summarizing information from his website. ←Hob 00:16, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
            • I hope you understand how I was able to interpret your statement as meaning what I thought it meant instead of what you intended it to mean. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • My point was more that, since we have established that this guy created a notable comic, he himself is notable by definition. His page provides a place for biographical information that has no place on the page about the actual webcomic. What's the harm in keeping it?Leithp 07:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but some of this is really vanity and can be tossed overboard - I mean, even for notable artists, since when do we note their previous day job in such detail ("Collaboration Product Line Manager at Novell, Inc.")? Also, it's true that the webcomic article is very lengthy, but that by itself shouldn't be an excuse for multiplying articles—otherwise fancruft would reproduce itself infinitely. ←Hob 00:28, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
    • His employment at Novell is noted because he was quite good at it. He co-authored a book on GroupWise, even. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I see you just added that piece of background information, which makes it a little less of a random piece of trivia. Still - most cartoonists have day jobs, many of them are good at their jobs; we don't list them all... we certainly don't provide month-by-month updates about them ("recently as of January 2005")...←Hob 06:53, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
        • Leaving your day job because your silly artistic venture is making enough money to support your family is a major event in a person's life, and should be noted in any biography. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, if a biography is appropriate in the first place. OK, I've said enough. ←Hob 00:16, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Merge to Schlock Mercenary. Nothing notable outside of a webcomic. Megan1967 03:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:51, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

3-4[edit]

Unnecessary and unnotable article about one - yes, only one - regular season soccer match. Delete. Harro5 09:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Angr/comhrá 10:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Hoary 10:52, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or re-write to include a short description of every football match that ever finished 3-4. Leithp 11:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody can verify that this is a very memorable, legendary match and "3-4" is its commonly known title. (e.g. Heidi Game, a memorable, legendary regular season American football match) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of matches played in a specific tournament, or by a specific team, would merit an article, but one single match certainly doesn't. Plus it's utterly hopelessly mistitled, too. — JIP | Talk 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Waltz. (We had a previous VfD on another soccer score. These devils are hard to find if not plucked from New Pages patrol.) Geogre 03:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:51, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pseudowallerian degeneration[edit]

"Pseudowallerian" is a nice term which gets zero google hits. Delete. Sjakkalle 11:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination since it is a real term. BTW what is the difference between "Pseudowallerian" and "Wallerian"? Sjakkalle 06:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a term used in neuroscience. I wouldn't expect to find many google hits. See here and here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and admire Tony's knowledge of neuroscience. Kappa 15:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually I just looked it up on pubmed. Anybody can play at being a brain surgeon online. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks Tony for the knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs expansion though. Klonimus 19:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and list as needing expansion.Capitalistroadster 22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Valid neuroscience topic. Megan1967 04:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Weierman[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page. If it isn't it requires serious attention, as there is nothing to indicate why Mr Weierman is noteworthy. Shane Smith 16:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page was listed on VfD in April, there is no idication that the vfd was ever concluded, relisting--nixie 11:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why wasn't this deleted at the appropriate close date? RickK 21:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. RickK 23:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Note: This page was vandalized by 64.81.231.206 (talk · contribs) and 216.125.11.221 (talk · contribs). RickK 66.60.159.190 17:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all beards--Doc Glasgow 12:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the admin who deletes the page: please remember to list Image:MeStephenJW.jpg on WP:IFD.
    • It's been there since this page was first created, IfD doesn't seem to be getting cleaned up. RickK 21:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definite vanity, definitely non-notable. -- Mwanner 21:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Prince Damien of Russia[edit]

This article is nonsense. There's no "Prince Damian of Russia", there's no "Grand Duchess Christina of Russia", and there's no such thing as an "Earl of Todmorden", or a "Viscount Allerton". The Barony of Allerton, held by a family with the surname "Jackson", became extinct in 1991 - Nunh-huh 11:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete More royal BS (when will these hoaxers get smart and less obvious) --Doc Glasgow 12:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searched Google and Encarta; found no references. Flcelloguy 23:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is it nonsense, but it also managed to attract a vandal. --Henrygb 23:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Kiddie slander/boast page (hence the vandal). Personally, I like it when they're this obvious. Some of the others (won't say what or how, because I don't want to give any of them ideas) are danged difficult. Geogre 03:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seem to be many inaccuracies here! (unsigned)
  • Keep The persons listed on this page are real, as are their positions, even though the titles are not legally recognised by the countries of issue, they are maintained out of courtesy. TPPD 17:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • please do not remove VfD tags whilst voting is in progress--Doc (t) 16:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Russian monarchy is no longer reigning, but the UK still recognizes its own domestic titles such as Earl -- so if Prince Damien really were a British earl, that should be verifiable without too much difficulty. But it sounds like he isn't one. Delete. --Metropolitan90 21:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • While some people do indeed retain Russian titles out of courtesy, or claim them, the people mentioned here, to the degree that they exist, aren't them. - Nunh-huh 04:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sounds very familiar would-be-noble-pretender terminology, especially in proliferation of titles. Would require much more proof - Skysmith 07:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Irpen 06:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 22:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Business Process Model[edit]

No potential to become enclyopedic the person who created this page also created ARIS House and The ARIS house of Business Engineering (HOBE) so it looks like advitisingGeni 11:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probable advertising. Original research, because no sources or references are given. This does not appear to be a description of any established, recognized way of modelling business processes. (Will change my vote if convincing evidence to the contrary is presented). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am not sure, here. It's not recreation of an exactly same-titled article, but I believe this is a recreation in content anyway. My recollection is that a similarly nebulously-titled article existed with almost identical content. The author was not a native English speaker and was translating, essentially, a piece of the business textbook he was given at his job. In any case, the article here is impenetrable, original research. Geogre 03:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to do business process modeling for a living. Still do on occasion. This article has very little to do with the general concept (which would be encyclopedic). This is a poor attempt to describe one company's proprietary approach to BPM consulting. Rossami (talk) 22:55, 1 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ARIS house of Business Engineering (HOBE)[edit]

looks like an ad (the author also created Business Process Model ARIS House no potential to become encyopedicGeni 11:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As with the nearly identical ARIS House, original research, conceivably advertising, prose that's thicker than a whale consume. Geogre 03:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Allen Hale[edit]

An anthropology student with a web page and a blog. Oh. Delete. -- Hoary 11:54, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I have entered this article in order to differentiate myself from the neo-Nazi by the name of Matthew Hale. (comment by User:Husunzi)

  • OK, not an 'nn' (neo-Nazi) but an 'nn' (not-notable) nevertheless, so delete--Doc Glasgow 12:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Missed approach[edit]

dicdef - already transwikied, no obvious re-direct and I see no real potential --Doc Glasgow 12:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC) point proven keep--Doc Glasgow 13:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, google is my friend. Could be further expanded to describe technique, other causes, notable incidents, and how aircraft control manages them. Kappa 13:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable aviation term. Capitalistroadster 22:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Valid aviation topic. Megan1967 04:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This is an important and extensive IFR flying topic. However, having said that, maybe it could simply be a section within Instrument flight rules. 63.108.162.253 22:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Lots of accidents happen this way.A2Kafir 19:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sweet action[edit]

dicdef - already transwikied, no obvious re-direct and I see no real potential--Doc Glasgow 12:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, concur. Kappa 12:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Grandma Butter Chicken[edit]

  • This article is supposedly about a main character in a blockbuster film who's title isn't even mentioned in the article. This main character "Grandma Butter Chicken" scores a stunning ZERO on google. Delete as hoax and/or nonsense. Sjakkalle 13:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent nonsense at its finest. Delete. -- Krash 13:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ah, the evils of writing Wikipedia articles with the browser known as Marijuana 1.0. (Nonsense.) Geogre 03:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 04:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahahahaha. BJAODNise - Lucky13pjn 00:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • One of those who created this article vandalized its VfD entry. [19] I strongly oppose this being sent to BJAODN. Sjakkalle 06:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 10:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the article being nonsense and also for it being a hoax. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should've been speedy, nonsense drini ☎ 06:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was Deleted, perhaps it was a Speedy Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep it was speedy deleted, and I think properly so under criterion G3 ("Pure vandalism"). This is the entry in the deletion log
        • 06:40, 24 May 2005 Jpgordon deleted "Grandma Butter Chicken" (nonsense) --Sjakkalle 06:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 as a copyvio. —Xezbeth 17:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Gareth Davies (preacher)[edit]

Article doesn't establish notability. --Lee Hunter 13:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. -- Scott eiπ 00:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Line[edit]

Subject is not notable enough to warrant its own page. This should be merged with the Revenge of the Sith article since it's nothing more than a small part of the overall Star Wars frenzy. A frenzy that will be a footnote in a years time. Dismas 13:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dismas, the next time that you wish to propose to merge articles instead of deleting them, you might want to post it on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles instead of VFD. And if you want a discussion on the proposed merge, there is always the option to tag them with {{mergedisputed}} and have comments be posted on their talk pages -- and possibly have the discussion be announced on RFC. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nateji77 15:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can expand this to an article about people lining up for all six of the Star Wars films. Samboy 01:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, but the article is improperly named (should be Star Wars line), and it would be better to talk about it in a general article on the general fetish for sitting on cold concrete in front of a poster with Lucas's name on it than having a general title and being about just one movie. The fact is, though, that I'm not sure there are very many identifying marks of this particular form of fetish. Geogre 03:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Star Wars. This kind of behaviour wasn't just limited to Revenge of the Sith. Megan1967 04:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Vegaswikian 06:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete...everyone who didn't outgrow Star Wars by at least the age of 18. (It's not like we're talking about something important here, like Star Trek). func(talk)
  • Merge with Star Wars: applies to all Star Wars movies, but too small to have its own article. —qrc 15:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Grauman's Chinese Theatre, as this event is particular that that (notable) venue. -- Seth Ilys 00:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 06:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cobra Productions[edit]

Unverifiable. I cannot find any relevant Google hits. Was created by the same user who created Grandma Butter Chicken, also currently marked on VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Delete. -- Krash 14:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can hear the stoned giggles from here. Blug. Prank/hoax/vandalism. Geogre 03:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 04:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Sjakkalle 06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. -- Scott eiπ 00:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hooktail[edit]

Hooktail has a minor role in this game, regardless of the fact that she is a Chapter Boss. I used to be more sentimental towards Mariocruft and all that jazz, but now it's just silly. -- A Link to the Past 13:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or keep, this fictional entity, no reason to delete it when merges are available. Kappa 14:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and it doesn't look like a probable search term (and isn't what I'd expect it to mean) so delete (but I can understand if people want to redirect to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door). RJFJR 20:02, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge It's short, and has a bit of potential for extension, (not much though.) It would be better to merge this either into Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, or an article on Hooktail Castle Sonic Mew 20:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor character, mario cruft. Megan1967 04:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 14:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. -- Scott eiπ 00:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Punio[edit]

For a minor character in a minor chapter. There's nothing that would require it to be separated from the rest. -- A Link to the Past 14:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • If there's nothing that would require it to be separated from the rest, you can merge/redirect without bringing it to vfd. Keep or merge this fictional character. Kappa 14:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (nn) already in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (will understand if people prefer to redirect there instead) RJFJR 20:04, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge It could be expanded. But it fits more in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door than as its own article. Sonic Mew 22:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, content duplication, mario cruft. Megan1967 04:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sonic Mew. Sjakkalle 08:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Mel Etitis. Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you Want me, Baby[edit]

Can this text be edited into an encyclopedic article on the song rather than its lyrics?? Delete if no one can do so. Georgia guy 14:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably at the correct title of "Don't You Want Me?" Deb 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiπ 00:17, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Villamor Alejo Jr.[edit]

Delete. Vanity article and non-notable. Sarg 14:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 and redirect. -- Scott eiπ 00:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

In da Club[edit]

  • Same as another song whose Vfd entry is mentioned above. Georgia guy 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the copyvio, redirect to In Da Club. Kappa 14:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS if its copyvio but there's a potential article, using the {{copyvio}} template is better than Vfd. Kappa 14:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, copyvio. Megan1967 04:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Kappa. Capitalistroadster 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 10:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. Leanne 05:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 The Pearl (novel). -- Scott eiπ 00:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Coyotito[edit]

About a non-notable literary character; verifiable information already included in The Pearl (novel). Spangineer ∞ 14:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect this fictional character. Kappa 16:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Pearl (novel). It is possible to write an article about a minor character (well, I did it with Glumdalclitch), but not when you're just filling out the who, what, when, and where of the character and no why. There has to be some context offered, some discussion, some placement of this information against the master topic. Otherwise, the information should be in the article on the master topic. Geogre 03:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's possible for a character like Glumdalclitch, who actually has lines and interacts with the main characters. But in The Pearl, Coyotito is treated more like a thing of great value, not a real character, because he has no lines or anything. His impact on the main characters is limited to his inate value in their eyes; nothing more. --Spangineer ∞ 13:28, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, duplicate information. Megan1967 04:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Mel Etitis. Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Working mums[edit]

Delete. Non encyclopedic, personal essay. Sarg 14:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This comment made by Sarina at this page's talk page: "I think in this story should stay as it expains what abuse towards woman is. Some people are not sure if what is happening to them is actually abuse. So I thought I would give a defenition of what it is". Sarina, I left a message in your user's page. Sarg 14:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Leithp 15:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay. Wikipedia is not the right place to post it. Thue | talk 15:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiπ 00:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Francisco L. Guzman[edit]

Not notable. A google search doesn't reveal any information about this man. Possible vanity page. Leithp 14:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possibly notable, but we don't even find out what country he is in, when he was born, what he has actually done. Without that information, delete. If rewritten to establish the importance of the man, I may change my vote. Geogre 03:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 00:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Smugness[edit]

Transwikied dicdef --Doc Glasgow 15:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 04:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, kept. -- Scott eiπ 00:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don Graves[edit]

Nonnotable politician who apparently is a candidate to be a candidate. Google doesn't show up anything relevant. Linuxbeak | Desk 15:25, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, appears to be a major-party candidate for national office. Kappa 15:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Is he "Donald E. Graves", the historian? Or a different Don Graves? — RJH
  • Keep. This is not the historian. [20] R Calvete 00:24, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Delete: candidates for beginning to run are not significant for that reason. Give us some accomplishments, some policies, some things that make this person interesting and likely to be researched. Geogre 03:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is expanded to show notability. Vegaswikian 06:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles like this should be written when the person already is something notable, not when they appear to potentially be that. Otherwise there'll simply be too many useless placeholders. Hardwick 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No explanation of notability, no references in the article. Quale 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --MarSch 14:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Delete nominator ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request expansion of the article to enable in forming an opinion about keep or delete.--Bhadani 13:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. -- Scott eiπ 00:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Henry Simpson[edit]

notable particularly in Portugal. Linuxbeak | Desk 15:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete, doesn't appear particularly famous or influential. Kappa 15:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — notable relatively young philosopher & economist, so far published 4 books in Portuguese — RJH 17:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, although some vanity is apparant. Megan1967 04:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent notability. Article is primarily vanity. No references, so difficult to verify claims. Quale 21:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable among investment bankers, references hard to find however --MarSch 14:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 01:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Derweissse[edit]

Nonnotable and vanity. Linuxbeak | Desk 15:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity--MarSch 14:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 01:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

David Ben-Ariel[edit]

Blatant advert. Linuxbeak | Desk 15:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Cleanup — he seems to be a semi-notable individual for his views and deportation. But this article needs hosing down with the neutrality canon. — RJH 16:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, self-promotion. Megan1967 04:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, advert, notability questionable. Quale 08:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. JamesBurns 10:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 01:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Astrology of the transit of venus[edit]

Delete. Original research. Sarg 16:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 05:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sven got cookie[edit]

Band vanity. Doesn't meet my criteria for retention of a band article. Kelly Martin 16:21, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should have been tagged {{Music-importance}} for a while. But it does not appear to meet that criteria so unless it is cleared up Delete. Vegaswikian 06:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 donkey. -- Scott eiπ 05:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

She-ass[edit]

Non-encyclopedic, dictionary entry. Should be deleted, "she-ass" already exists in Wiktionary. --splintercellguy 16:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Donkey. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Wahoofive. A supposition definition? :) — RJH 16:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calcline[edit]

Advertisement, not notable enough to be encyclopedic. Delete. Sholtar 16:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Not encyclopedic even if cleaned up. Damging to Wikipedia. Eixo 16:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's close to speedy delete for spam, but probably a proper VfD case (where I doubt anyone can conclude anything but that it's advertising). Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. Geogre 02:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing of value here. Che Fox 03:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 05:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Piss_Mops[edit]

Entry is an advertisement for a porn site, and contains no encyclopedic value. Page is just a stub, and there are no links to it. Che Fox 16:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sholtar 16:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 50,000 hits is enough for me, proves people might want to research it. Kappa 23:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Anyone who wants to "research" it can do so at Urolagnia. --Angr/comhrá 23:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that would be a merge vote then? Kappa 01:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because there's nothing useful here to merge there. --Angr/comhrá 16:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just another porn site. 50,000 hits is entirely barmicidal: porn site hits on Google cannot be compared to anything else's links. Meaningless content that's basically advertising. Geogre 03:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I compare porn site hits with other porn site hits. Kappa 08:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not an obvious advertisement. Accurately describes the site, which is one of the best known of its kind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like the others said, its not notable and clearly an advertisement. -CunningLinguist 07:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. JamesBurns 10:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. Radiant_* 14:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement CDC (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Leanne 05:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or make it a redirect to Urolagnia. Atari2600tim 23:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 05:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ivana kovacevic[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. No notability stablished. And surname doesnt start with a capital letter... Sarg 16:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Agreed: most PhD candidates are less notable than professors. Maybe later... :-) — RJH 16:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete and have done with it. Deb 17:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but good luck with the PhD. Kappa 23:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's Rule. Barno 20:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 05:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Bolser[edit]

Vanity page. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Spends a lot of time about the future web site and the family members who will help build it. Vegaswikian 06:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quale 21:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DS1953 22:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AshleyBolser As a Newbie I wanted to try my hand at publishing on a topic I know lots about! I accept that it might be vanity...But as I intend to publish a book on my business career, I felt this might be a good place to build to provide links to the book. I could put links to press coverage about me and my business and charity activities. However if you feel it's better to delete, so be it!

  • Don't Delete, I know Ashley is hardly an international figure, however, he is the most sucessfull and famous Ashley Bolser on earth. That should count for something? --Dan|(talk) 17:25, 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. -- Scott eiπ 05:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bazoo[edit]

Delete. This is a dicdef of a quite obscure word. If anything, it belongs to Wiktionary. Sarg 16:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki and rewrite. Eixo 17:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense. Google search doesn't turn up anything inspiring. It's listed with a different (albeit equally asinine) definition at Urbandictionary. -- Krash 19:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 05:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

National Security Intelligence Agency[edit]

Unverifiable. Delete. Tradnor 16:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 04:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is an agency with that name in Canada. So if someone replaces the text to describe the existing agency in Canada there should be no problems with the article. Vegaswikian 06:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent. Article previously said "in fact, it is still secret. But if you are reading this then it is not a secret anymore." Gazpacho 20:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Doesn't even exist. Linuxbeak | Desk 16:40, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by RickK Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ice_cube_songs[edit]

Page is a bunch of lyrics. Should be merged with "Ice Cube" or deleted. --splintercellguy 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied. RickK 23:22, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Rick. Master Thief GarrettTalk 11:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near- Death Experience of Jesus[edit]

Not enough of an article on it's own, delete or merge with Jesus. Sholtar 17:02, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Scott eiπ 06:09, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blargg[edit]

An unimportant enemy boasted to make him seem almost as if he were a mini-boss, when in fact, he's a rare - but unimportant - enemy. -- A Link to the Past 14:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fancruft. Martg76 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good short article. Could be merged somewhere, no need to delete. Kappa 22:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a good article, it has false statements all over. Saying he's the Guardian of Larry Koopa and all; he's not even. This can be rewritten into a couple of lines. -- A Link to the Past 23:10, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or possibly merge into a article about mario villans. Oddly enough, when I first saw the name I thought it was one of the monsters Spaceman Spiff fought! Sabine's Sunbird 01:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please but a merge would be ok too Yuckfoo 02:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, minor character, mario cruft. Megan1967 04:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 14:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, merge all these minor Super Mario enemy articles together to form one big article if someone wants to spend time on it. Sjakkalle 15:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'; a character known to thousands of players. (This is Wiwaxia, by the way.) 24.4.127.164 11:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep almost 4k google hits --MarSch 13:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4k hits, but not many about this mighty dragon Karol 13:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Plus, it's not a CHARACTER. It's a matter of content, not knowledge of him. -- A Link to the Past 21:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with something - Karol 13:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe it isn't character, but it is well known on SMW players circles because of he's "Blargg" sound. Hołek ҉ 11:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and merge. -- Scott eiπ 06:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Wario[edit]

This is a minigame, not an actual character, among hundreds of other minigames. -- A Link to the Past 14:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fancruft. Martg76 18:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there is much more to say about the character, it is pretty pointless Sonic Mew 18:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with a list of minigames, no need to delete. Kappa 22:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added information for it on its page as a sign of good faith that I'm not deleting them just for the sake. If someone wants to make a Minigames page, they better make it. I've saved the information, so this can be deleted until the Minigames page is created. -- A Link to the Past 23:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor game, mario cruft. Megan1967 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dr. Mario or Minor Wario Ware Characters; and we could also merge it. --SuperDude 03:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but should be merged. I am not sure where to merge this, so bring that up on the discussion page and merge this later. Sjakkalle 08:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and merge. -- Scott eiπ 06:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bahamutt[edit]

A very minor enemy; Only appears in Chesters and from Magikoopa, which are both rare. -- A Link to the Past 14:17, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fancruft. Martg76 18:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or possibly merge. Well written, no need to delete. Kappa 21:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into what? Most, more common enemies aren't even featured in the Super Mario RPG page. The List of Mario Villains page, maybe, but most of the information on this page is mostly about the connection between Bahamut and Bahamutt.--A Link to the Past 23:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Baphomet as "Bahamet" is one variant of that. As for what's there now, send it to GameFAQs or Everything2 or the manual for the game or something. Geogre 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, minor character, mario cruft. Megan1967 04:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Bahamut. Well known. Even I remember the good gold dragon from my mis-spent youth.  :) Wikibofh 04:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable with 3k+ google hits. --MarSch 13:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if there is nowhere to merge this. Sjakkalle 08:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and why was the image removed??? Falphin 01:24, 2 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 redirect to Professor E. Gadd. -- Scott eiπ 06:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. E.Gadd[edit]

The title, clone page. Need I say more? -- A Link to the Past 14:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as fancruft before anyone wikifies it. Martg76 18:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, character appearing in multiple games. Kappa 21:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason this is up for deletion is because this is an incorrect page. The correct page is Professor E. Gadd, and it has all of the info listed at this page on it already, so Delete is the only logical option. -- A Link to the Past 23:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL, couldn't you have just redirected it? Kappa 01:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, let's see.
  1. It's a typo title.
  2. At no point is he ever referred to as a Doctor. We might as well make a page called Baron Von Bowser. -- A Link to the Past 02:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    1. That's a good reason for a redirect.
    2. We shouldn't, but if such a page is made someone is obviously confused and the redirect would be helpful to that person, at least. In addition, it would discourage further creation of the mistakenly named page. -- Jonel 00:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Clu Clu Land. -- Scott eiπ 06:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)[edit]

Inadequate information, not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. -- A Link to the Past 14:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiπ 06:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sparky (Nintendo)[edit]

Very miniscule article, only discusses Watt, nothing about the minor enemy. -- A Link to the Past 14:21, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiπ 06:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Central Lutheran Cathedral now moved to Central Lutheran Church[edit]

As a resident of Minneapolis and a Lutheran, I can state that this name is not currently used, and is not "the popular name". Additionally the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does not have cathedrals. This article should be deleted. EdwinHJ

  • Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 18:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason I see given for deletion is that the name is incorrect. Articles shouldn't be deleted for that reason alone, they should just be moved to the correct name, in this case Central Lutheran Church. JYolkowski // talk 18:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as appropriate. Kappa 21:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable church. RickK 23:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I moved it to Central Lutheran Church. "Cathedral" problem solved. I'm an atheist, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to delete an article on this very pretty modern gothic church. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add expansion. Appears to be reasonably notable. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Radiant_* 14:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Leanne 05:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- Scott eiπ 06:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The OC Episode Guide now moved to The O.C. episode guide[edit]

This page is extremely out of date, much of the information is in the main The O.C. page, it's unnecessary Greg321 18:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it's out of date, update it. I cannot see anything at this level of detail in the main page. It doesn't need to have every single episode to provide some useful information. I'm linking it from the main The O.C. page so it will be more likely to be found and extended in future. Fans love this kind of stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, great for fans, of general interest as a snippet of American culture. Kappa 21:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepit, but instead of updating it, just make it link to the O.C's FOX website, which has an in-depth, fully up to date episode guide better than this anyway. Steelix 16:16, 30 May 2005 (CST)
  • KeepWhoh whoh there. This page has some great potential to serve as the most comprehensive O.C. episode guide on the net. I've made a few changes to the first entry, check it out, we can use it as a template for the rest. We can make this better than fox's page. Also, its entirely inappropriate to say this page is out of date. Just because all the episodes haven't been written about yet, doesn't mean the information in the sections already written is out of date. People use episode guides for information on all episodes, even old ones. oregonrains


This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 eiπ 06:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

1 Vs 3 Minigame Tree[edit]

Article lacks sufficient context as to be comprehensible. The facts recited therein seem a bit questionable to me, too. Kelly Martin 18:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as fancruft. Martg76 18:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatahell? Delete as incomprehensible fancruft. Geogre 03:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 04:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Teklund 11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was re-written since debate, kept. -- Scott eiπ 06:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

George L. Hart[edit]

Wikipedia is not an autobiography Linuxbeak | Desk 18:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete vanity Brighterorange 18:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, copyvio. Megan1967 04:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is vanity, he seems to be a serious academic who might even be notable enough for a Wikipedia page. But this is a copyvio. Martg76 14:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 10:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- Scott eiπ 06:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

AMA-953 BABI[edit]

I have no idea what this article says. I cannot believe it is encyclopedic.. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It appears to be something, perhaps Gundam-related, although it is difficult to tell when taken out of context. On one hand, I think it could almost be speedied as nonsense, but I wouldn't advocate it. Could anyone shed some light on the subject? Mr Bound 18:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete first choice, second choice merge redir to some combined Mobile fighting suits in the Gundam universe, or some such, as the consensus was to do with similar categories of minor fictional characters. (Checking 'what links here' gives some context--seems to be comparable to Pokemon attack levels, or whatever.). Niteowlneils 19:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it's more akin to having articles for individual Pokemon. Which Wikipedia does indeed have. There are a total of 393 (!) such articles on Wiki. Redxiv 01:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per consensus. Kappa 22:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, Gundam cruft. Megan1967 04:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatever it is, it is some sort of cruft. Martg76 09:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, people who aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to know whether something is notable should generally abstain from VFD on it. Redxiv 01:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to some Gundam article. This information might actually be of use, but individual articles for every single mobile suit type is fancruft in the extreme. — JIP | Talk 17:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is mostly one big fat template full of links to surprisingly big articles. Considering this article in isolation I would have voted delete, but I really need to see some vision about what to do with all articles in that template. So for now Keep this fancruft. --MarSch 13:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original reason for nominating this for deletion is no longer valid after the article's cleanup. redxiv 00:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. Neutralitytalk 05:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Florence Nibart-Devouard[edit]

While I really like Anthere, I don't think an article on her is appropriate. (And yes, I am aware that the article on Angela was kept. Delete. Neutralitytalk 18:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Less notable than schools. If notability is something known to those outside of a small area or interest group, then this isn't as notable as a school as theres more people in a city than using Wikipedia to the extent of wanting to know about Wikimedia Committee members. I'll abstain until the inevitable case for keeping comes along, as i'm unsure. Hedley 18:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's a board member and a major force within one of the top 100 sites on the internet. And on a totally irrelevant note, she's a very nice person. -- Seth Ilys 18:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There should probably be a vote on all Trustees, since we seem to be nominating them one by one. Mike H 01:04, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is borderline. Has some notability. Megan1967 04:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatically keep. A similar vote was taken on Angela's article, and it was decided to keep the article - even against Angela's wishes. Anthere is of equal status to Angela, and keeping the article is a must. Anyway, if Sonja Elen Kisa (who's she?) merits an article, Anthere so much more so. David Cannon 06:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Seth Ilys. JamesMLane 09:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Board of top 100 website and does a lot of public speaking for it, so is increasingly known in the outside world - David Gerard 11:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I started the article. JuntungWu 11:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice person, on the board of a moderately notable online collaboration. Kappa 13:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is like asking a bunch of Pokemon fans whether List of Pokemon whose names are derived from printer cartridges should be kept or not. That is to say, I lean towards keep, but I can't really know how notable she (or Angela) is because I have a bias. – ugen64 05:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I urge all voters to remember the result of this vote when borderline notable stuff comes up for deletion in other areas. Wikipedia will be better if it is not systematically biased. Pcb21| Pete 18:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I'm aware I voted delete on Angela's, but Wikipedia has broken into the top 50 on the internet and I now think that its board members are notable by default. Antandrus (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: VP of Wikimedia sounds notable to me. Zocky 05:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I would not have imagined having an article given all the discussions on notability... but I also think that I should have no say on it, I have no say either on whether I "deserve" to be on it or not. Proof is you do not either, no one thought of asking me my opinion when it was listed here... I just learn about it on the irc channel :-) Just two notes

  • Similar articles were created on the french wikipedia. I listed the articles on votes for deletion on the french pedia... As far as I know, french people decided to delete Ang and myself, as "non notable people of a non notable website". I thought it amuzing and an interesting biais... :-). If Angela had not been kept previously here, I would have listed both here as well.
  • In case the pages are kept, it would be interesting to reflect on the long term. Does that mean all board members will be listed in the future by default ? Or what ? It is pretty hard to define how much members are notable when we know them ;-)

Anthere

    • I think this vote is great news. Combined with our aim of avoiding systematic bias, Wikipedia will be a lot more inclusionist from now on. Pcb21| Pete 07:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, you might choose to delete it if I am no more on the board next year ;-) More seriously, I'd like to thank people of all the nice comments made above. I am not in a great great great mood these days. I actually had a 2 days wikiSlow to try to feel better in the past few days, but then... there was too much to do :-) Anyway, it was very nice to see editors comments and it gave me some energy... to consider very important decisions to be made about the Foundation just today during the board meeting. Thanks. Anthere


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Scott eiπ 06:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kiss King of Balls[edit]

I have *NO* idea what to call this... I think it's a company policy/mission statement.. but even if that's the case, Wikipedia is not a Soapbox Linuxbeak | Desk 19:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Apparently it's describing a franchise that sells something like a meatball (but the name in English, this is probably a literal translation, is a marketing nightmare!). Only 41 googles. Interesting yes but I don't know if it's notable. We might get more googles if we knew the Phillipine name. (article needs tightening). RJFJR 20:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Looks like a business venture, perhaps they are looking for free publicity, unless notability can be proven otherwise. --Bobbagum 20:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's listed in List of Philippine companies, but there are only 21 Google hits for it, so I can't imagine it's that notable. No vote. RickK 23:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Entry in list is recursive justification, in my book. Aside from the hilarity of the name, it just seems to be a small company, and we have to avoid the Yellow Pages syndrome. Geogre 03:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form, it's advertising. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, business promo. Megan1967 04:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. JamesBurns 10:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some company's About page. 208.40.64.2 17:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. -- Scott eiπ 06:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

????[edit]

non-notable single character in one computer game. Material is already in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. Doesn't seem like probable search key. Real name is Dupliss (according to article). Recommend delete, I don't think we need to redirect or move. RJFJR 20:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to a list of character or keep, no need to delete. Kappa 21:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a character list. If not, change the article name to "Doopliss," since the character has an actual name. Nameneko 22:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate article title. RickK 23:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adequate information on the game's page. -- A Link to the Past 23:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate content, cruft. Megan1967 04:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Martg76 09:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Contents are suitable only for a Super Mario Wiki. — JIP | Talk 17:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not referred to as Dooplis until some time after you find him. (A spoiler warning should be added at least.) Merge to somewhere relevant. Sonic Mew 22:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jon Buckland[edit]

NN, and a hunch it's vanity too. Denni☯ 20:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Keep the first line only, the rest should be deleted. --TimPope 22:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and clean up. Type this guy's name into Google, and then ask how notable he is. Coldplay is one of the biggest bands in the world - do you see how many crappy garage bands we let live through VfD? Harro5 22:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I remove my deletion request. Denni☯ 23:18, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Merge with Coldplay. Not notable on his own. Megan1967 04:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I wouldn't list every band member of every band, I'd say if you're the lead guitarist of a band that has a triple platinum album and has won Grammy awards, you might well deserve a separate article if you've played on any other albums released, and he has. Some autobiographical details can be safely dropped, but musical influences for a musician are notable and should be kept. Average Earthman 11:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guitarist for one of the biggest bands in the world. BTW, the Vfd notice is missing from the article. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable. Longhair | Talk 03:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable. --MarSch 13:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 06:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Entity removal[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than advertisment for a specific business. Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. Advertising. Delete Wikibofh 21:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 eiπ 06:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Beautybash.net[edit]

A lame discussion board. Denni☯ 21:46, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide or chat guide or blog guide or historian of screen names. Unverifiable claims as well. Geogre 03:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not really an article Gblaz 18:54, 1 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 07:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Blue Balliett[edit]

NN Denni☯ 21:51, 2005 May 21 (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, kept. -- Scott eiπ 06:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:Captainovesen/Omary[edit]

Wikipedia is not for personal homepages or self-promotion. that's what this user's sub page is turning into. Kingturtle 21:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it s a Userfied page which was speedy deleted as a vanity article. RickK 23:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - at least until an attempt is made to discuss the matter with the user - that might have come prior to a VfD --Doc Glasgow 23:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prior to this VfD my interaction with this user involved banning the user for 24 hours because he uploaded a picture of a young girl with the comment anal sex and then placed the image on the anal sex article. Kingturtle 02:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If the birth date on the article is accurate, the article poster is only 13 years old. That might explain some of the erratic behavior. Firebug 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like grounds to delete regardless of this contents of the page--Doc Glasgow 02:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. Material such as that when placed in an article of content like that could reflect poorly on Wikipedia and can possibly be seen as condoning pedophilia. Luckily Shivian took care of it.--Lzygenius 08:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)-Lzygenius 08:25, 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. CDC (talk) 22:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harri Veijonen[edit]

The subject matter does not appear to be particularly notable. Crotalus horridus 21:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Could be expanded. Really, there are articles on a million and one crappy US preachers, but this guy has actually done something. Harro5 22:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am ignorant of this topic, please explain which of the statements in the article establish him as someone people would want to look up. Kappa 23:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give us a list of these million and one US preachers, so we can list them for deletion, too. RickK 04:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this guy isn't a US preacher. It looks like he's Finnish. He has an article on the Finnish wikipedia [22]. No vote at the moment. R Calvete 00:29, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity preacher with his own vanity church and vanity pamphlets. C W Merchant 01:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've never heard of this guy, but as Wikipedia has taught me, that does not prove non-notability. His website is quite funny. As a native speaker of Finnish, I was able to get the general gist of his writing style, and it doesn't seem to be all that serious. — JIP | Talk 17:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harri_Veijonen http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tietosanakirja

/Encyclopedia

Links:

Harri Veijonen: Suomalaiset tietosanakirjat (http://wwnet.fi/users/veijone/tietosanakirja.htm)

Encyclopedias in Finland by Harri Veijonen!


  • Delete, NN. Radiant_* 14:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Leanne 05:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:14, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thereaganrockets[edit]

Non-notable sports team. Denni☯ 22:03, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sports vanity. Harro5 22:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. agree with Harro and Denni. Mr Bound 01:03, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Dorm vanity verging on vandalism (and other alliterative v-words, like vulgarism). Geogre 03:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, team vanity. Megan1967 05:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adam Eillott Rush[edit]

Google sucks. Here's this "Child-Prodigy, Author, Poet, Musician, Scientist, Inventor, Politician and Political Consultant, Successful Business Mogul, Revolutionary", and not a single hit. How is this possible? Rl 22:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Obviously, AERush is way, way too hip for us! His page is "to be edited," too. Geogre 03:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re international, llc[edit]

Just an advertisement. — A.M. 22:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertisement. (this was by User:Mgstone at 22:50, 21 May 2005)
  • Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 05:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 to delete, but some to redirect. Instead of these suggestions, though, I'm going to redirect to Deterministic (disambiguation), which provides a bunch of possible meanings of the concept.

Determination[edit]

This is a collection of dicdefs, BUT I think the concept itself might be useable for an encyclopedia article. So, if someone has knowledge about the subject and any usefull ideas... Else, we can transwiki if you deem anything salvageable. Sarg 23:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dictdef. It's true that the "logic" definition has much to say about it, but these things would mostly be in epistemology and possibly at empiricism. Because any such discussion would be very highly specialized and would overlap instantly into other areas, it's probably best to not attempt a duplicate discussion. Geogre 03:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least as soft redirect to epistemology and possibly empiricism. Kappa 20:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to wiktionary. --MarSch 13:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictdefs Karol 13:04, May 26, 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) 21:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Philip J. Brinkman[edit]

Delete as vanity/not notable --Henrygb 23:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity. --Angr/comhrá 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vanilla vanity, refreshing to see. Userfy, if he gets an account. Geogre 03:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am this person. I did not create this entry. Please delete ASAP. Apologies if this is the wrong way to make this request, but I just created an account to do so.brinkman 16:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 21:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meade Skelton[edit]

delete - ongoing stupidity --R Lee E

  • Speedy delete candidate for an attempted libel page. ("Attempted" because it's trying to use accusations of homosexuality as an insult.) Geogre 03:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert to a previous stub. It appears from the history that User:R Lee E is the vandal here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. I go back in the history, and, sure enough, this fellow has been vandalizing like a hyperactive teenager, but what he's been vandalizing is just as juvenile, just as inappropriate. No matter how far back, I don't find a valid article in there. Perhaps what we need to be doing is banning about 3 users? Geogre 12:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Meade Skelton is a guy who posts on the IMDB Soapbox message board. He's not important enough to merit an entry. It's just a silly feud between him and some other people he irritates with inflammatory comments.

  • Delete--nixie 06:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Vandal sandbox. jni 06:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry - I do not want to be banned, and that was the wrong way to handle it. My apologies. It won't happen again.R Lee E 06:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, kept. -- Scott eiπ 07:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Red martian[edit]

Vanity band. --Lee Hunter 23:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unsigned band. It is true that bands that bypass the record companies are going to present a nightmare for verification and notability in the future, but I don't think we're there yet. Geogre 03:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: You shouldn't aid in the stigma of unsigned bands or they'll never progress in the future. If they wanted a record deal, they could easily get one. They're popular in England and America, and I think that is a bigger factor in their validity than their label. It's very debatable whether they're truly a vanity band or not, but you can't disregard them in light of their importance to modern music, especially with their affiliations to bands like The Severed Heads and Cute. See Sevcom Roint May 30th 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rockets[edit]

Only four google results with "Reagan Rockets". Non-notable unless someone happens to verify it in any way. If not, then let's delete. Sarg 23:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As more of these pop up for this team, its obviously just vanity. Harro5 00:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete candidate under criterion #1. This "article" is nothing more than a narrative form of a redirect. All it does is tell you to click on something else. Geogre 03:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page should be merged with page The reagan rockets into a new page "Reagan Rockets". Appears that content merits keeping article. --splintercellguy 03:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: that article is also on vfd :) Sarg 08:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no content, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_21&oldid=1081092843"