Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 11

April 11

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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?) 16:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mastabeta

It's just advertising, and has no potential to become encyclopedic. Delete.Revived 00:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising, not notable Commander 00:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam and advertising. - (Erebus555 11:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, promotional spam, and poorly-written besides. -- Dcfleck 15:04, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sprite (soft drink)

Advertising/Non-encyclopedic nominated by 172.202.84.150, cleaned up by FreplySpang

• Keep, I don't see how this is "non-encyclopedic". Kappa 01:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. FreplySpang (talk) 01:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sprite has influenced American culture. This is encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's definitely enciclopedic, like Coca-Cola, Fanta and so on. Mushroom 01:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why not just let American's use this wiki and be done with it? (rfractal30)
  • Comment made by 172.202.84.150, this vfd's nominator. [1]
  • What are you talking about? Have a look at List_of_soft_drinks. Gazpacho
• Keep. However, if it does has some element of an ad in here, then it should be cleaned up. Zscout370 01:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Meelar (talk) 01:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. Eric119 01:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sorry if what I wrote was a bit harsh. Maybe the right way to go is to include individual companies under wider topics, e.g. 'Soft Drinks' or 'Lemonade'. That way any accusations of unfairness or advertising will be avoided. (rfractal30)
  • Comment made by 172.202.84.150, this vfd's nominator. [2]
  • Comment: now that since the person who nominated this VfD has voted to keep this page, should this listing be removed now? Zscout370 01:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: When I say keep, I mean in the sense of integrating the subject matter with a wider topic. I put 'keep' in because the software seemed to be insisting that I use a header, it would not let me head with the word 'merge'. (rfractal30)
      • Comment made by 172.202.84.150, this vfd's nominator. [3]
• Comment. Everybody reading this discussion might want to take a look at our related debate on the policy of brand name products. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a universal element of American popular culture. (NeevaN 02:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)) My precedent being:
  • It depends on how notable the product is. If its a product that has entered the public conciousness, then it should be kept. If it is an obscure product or brand that no one has ever heard of, it should either be merged to the article on the company or deleted. DaveTheRed 05:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) [4]
    • It is very notable. Every time people say Sprite, they think of this drink. Sprite has used many famous people to promote their product and it is very heavily influenced our culture and trying to exploit it to earn a few dollars. Plus, as I mentioned before, I still think the page is an invalid listing, since the nom. has voted keep (or merge). Zscout370 02:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Bingo! Exactly, notable. Maybe a brand like..... say..... D-link? might not deserve a page, but Sprite is most definitely popular enough. Satanicbowlerhat 02:21 Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • D-Link is notable, I'm using a D-Link DI-624 wireless router right now. And drinking some sprite. Klonimus 00:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree, D-Link is a very notable brand name among Internet routers. I used to have one but not any more, I use a different model. And I'm drinking Carlsberg, not Sprite. — JIP | Talk 20:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • My mistake about the D-link, it was just that i had a router right there, and I had no idea it was popular. Satanicbowlerhat 03:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep universally recognized brand names. --Asriel86 02:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even though I hate the stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but present a more balanced approach - Sprite is sugar-water. Tasty, I concede, as verified by the case in my fridge right now but also of dubious health value and not good for children (who should be drinking milk and fruit juice). -- 8^D ^gab 02:49, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  • ... although not together. ☺ Uncle G 15:38, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Popular soft drink. Dave the Red (talk) 03:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Why was this even up for VfD in the first place? Sprite is very notable both in Europe and in the USA. — JIP | Talk 04:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, internationally known brand of soft-drink. Ad-like language can be dealt with, but I haven't seen any yet. Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable soft drink. Too much sugar and bad for health though, do not drink it. Sjakkalle 13:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated above. 23skidoo 15:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very notable. Oliver Keenan 19:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable soft drink. Klonimus 00:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wellknown soft drink. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bogus nomination. Sprite is one of the most famous soft drinks. --TheSamurai 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Keep. - Lucky 6.9 04:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well known and encyclopedic sodacruft. ComCat 06:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, well known part of american culture. Gazeofsorrow 08:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment- Erm. I think we get the message now? I vote that the page is kept and not waste anymore peoples time. Sorry about my nomination but I was new this this wikipedia thing. I still find all this corporate advertising on here to be highly distasteful. Anyway, 'Lilt' is by far the superior product.. (rfractal230)
  • I've had Lilt and...let's just say that a beverage has never made me vomit before. Mike H 17:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• LOL!! As for me, I thought Lilt was a brand of hair color. As for vomit-inducing drinks, User:Popeccola told me of his experience with that horrendous turkey-flavored soda that caused a stir a couple of years ago. Let's say his description was rather colorful. - Lucky 6.9 05:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Lilt hasn't been a brand of hair color since the 1970s. :) And even then, that's '70s America. Lilt is known in the UK for being a beverage. ;) Mike H 19:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Notable soft drink. --cesarb 17:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. According to Coca-Cola, "Sprite is sold in more than 190 countries and ranks as the no. 4 soft drink worldwide" -- hardly of local interest! --iMb~Meow 14:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ¨Keep. --Jannex 08:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lexi merwin

Vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Google search for phrase "Lexi Merwin" gets 0 hits. The 1-line article is un-encyclopedic. Sheldrake 02:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied for containing no useful info. She's a person, so what? Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taryn Stickney

This seems to be a vanity page. I think it should be deleted or moved to the author's user page.

Mushroom 00:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Google search for phrase "Taryn Stickney" gets one obscure hit. Sheldrake 02:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The usual sort of kid vanity page. jni 06:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Can't be userfied to anon page. Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, incomplete un-encyclopedic article. Oliver Keenan 19:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanitycruft. No chance of being encyclopedic. ComCat 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Look at the talk page if you have any doubts. Vengeful Cynic 21:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Distorion Co.

This seems to be a vanity page. I think it should be deleted or moved to the author's user page.

Mushroom 00:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Could be speedy deleted as nonsense --nixie 01:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have speedy deleted it as patent nonsense (future history). jni 06:16, 11 Apr 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?) 16:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Windfall

Probable vanity. I also doubt this is the type of "windfall" mentioned in Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics (77). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:12, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Megan1967. -- Dcfleck 15:07, 2005 Apr 16 (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?) 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bilal Saqib

Vanity. Not notable. Delete.--Plainsong 04:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. His most notable writings are letters to the editor. Dsmdgold 02:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Long run

This article is basically a footnote to the Economics article, and ought to be merged in (if it is in fact correct). I can't see how it could justify a whole article to itself. -- Dcfleck 02:05, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this article as a stub after running across red wiki links to it in a few economics articles. It's a very important concept in finance/economics/accounting. After it was VfD'ed, I did a little work on the article to touch it up, but I don't want to give the impression of trying to alter the vote. There are quite a few core concepts in economics that can be described as footnotes, but they don't merit deletion. Debit and Credit (accounting) are both simple accounting concepts, but they shouldn't be aggregated into Accounting as footnotes.Feco 02:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: Try to alter the vote by improving the article. This isn't an election or a test. It's a discussion. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Hey, if you can make a decent article out of it, go for it. As I initially saw it, I don't think it needed its own article. On the other hand, if it can be described simply with a single line of text or two, might it better belong in Wiktionary? -- Dcfleck 02:29, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  • in the spirit of honest VfD, I'll refrain from doing a major touchup until after VfD is finished. I expect that most people will vote keep... it not, I'll add writing a thourough article to my to-do list. In my opinion, it's more than a dicdef, because it applies to several diff. economic frameworks w/ different effects on analysis. Feco
    • It's not somehow dishonest to improve the article whilst it is being discussed. Indeed, that is encouraged. Please read WP:GVFD#Editing_an_article_nominated_for_deletion. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Comment: how could this page omit the famous quote by John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead"? —Wahoofive | Talk 03:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I will refrain from voting until Feco (or someone else) has a stab at rewriting this article. Keep; good expansion, valid stub. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Feco for improving this article. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've tried to make the entry a little clearer for us non-economics types. Because of its revised and expanded state, I will change my vote to Keep. (I nominated this entry for deletion, by the way.) -- Dcfleck 12:21, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid economic topic. I came looking for it after seeing a reference to "long run" in a recent Brad DeLong posting ("Our Twin Financial Puzzles: The Long Run May Come Like a Thief in the Night"). --Calton | Talk 23:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: If this gets deleted at some point someone will create it based off of Daniel_Keys_Moran and then all of the economics articles are going to end up linked to something completely irrelevant. Worth it for the stub and a place for disambiguation Wikibofh 23:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The article might be bad... but it doesn't have to be. gren 03:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Toronto—Danforth

This is a redirect to a page called "Toronto(mdash character)Danforth" - I can't even get it to show up correctly. It seems to me the original page ought not to use the long dash in its name, settling for a plain old - character, and this redirect page should go away completely. -- Dcfleck 01:30, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Redirects should be discussed on Redirects for deletion. RickK 02:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• True enough. But as long as we're discussing it ...

Keep This page exists for a practical reason: on many computers, the Wikipedia dash symbol is represented on the screen during edits by the following symbols: & m d a s h ; (no spaces in the original). There are many redirects like this on Wikipedia, all pointing toward the pages with "proper" symbols.

Also, Elections Canada uses a dash (rather than a hyphen) to spell the riding's name.

In other words, this is all above board. CJCurrie 02:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Harmless and useful redirect. Should have been listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. —Markaci 2005-04-15 T 23:17 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 16:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autrijus Tang

Non-notable hacker, vanity? RickK 02:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete likely vanity, although I respect anyone who implements a procedural language with functional language. Gazpacho 02:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, because I'm biased (I work on Perl 6 and Pugs). Autrijus lives in Taiwan; whois says that the page's creator has an American IP. Vanity seems unlikely. —Brent Dax 07:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't think it's vanity. He wrote Pugs. I think Wikipedia should list notable programmers. See Chuck Moore or Yukihiro Matsumoto. Google has 17,800 results for "Autrijus Tang". Mushroom 14:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, does sound notable, cleanup for NPOV as necessary. Kappa 20:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, much more encyclopedic than porn images, and we seem to keep those. JYolkowski 21:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Vaguely notable programmer. JuntungWu 14:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable. --NormanEinstein 14:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, probably because I use Perl so much. I rewrote the extant text to be more 3rd-person NPOV. -- Dcfleck 15:23, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Abstain, because that's me. It is by no means vanity -- I was not aware of this page until I stumbled by it myself. I'm neutral on whether to keep this or not; if the vote is for keep, I'd be happy to contribute relevant, non-vanity materials to this page. Autrijus 07:19, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Keep. Moderately well-known programmer. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Moderately well-known programmer, doing absolutely amazing things with small amounts of code in Pugs (and his other code is pretty cool too). Knobunc 14:15, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Autrijus is well-known in the perl community for being phenomenally productive and his recent work on Pugs has only served to increase the mythos :-). --PerlPilot 20:54 (UTC), Apr 18, 2005
• Keep. chocolateboy 21:41, 22 Apr 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?) 16:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Macedonio Valverde Mora

Gaurav1146 marked this vfd on March 18, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 01:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Magoun Square

Asdlfjksa marked this vfd on March 4 with comment "No city, state, country, etc. Useless.", but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 01:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep local landmarks. --SPUI (talk) 21:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• That's not a landmark, it's little more than a street. Delete as subtrivial. Radiant_* 09:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to qualify as a landmark. --NormanEinstein 14:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important to its local area, and the junction of two major thoroughfares [5]. Kappa 20:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's the name of a neighborhood, like nearby Davis Square. See also Ball Square, Union Square and Teele Square for other examples of Somerville neighborhoods. FreplySpang (talk) 11:41, 13 Apr 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?) 16:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maia Lee

211.24.65.221 marked this vfd on April 10, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 01:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, idolcruft. Megan1967 07:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Grue 19:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mall at Stonecrest

• Delete, unimportant entry, POV & racist, above all. YannisKollias 15:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm the author. Yes, it has its racist-seeming moments, but I go to Stonecrest every week, and that is an accurate description of the mall. Unimportant? perhaps, but Wiki DOES have a link to it, so why not fill it out with an experienced local POV? T. Johnson 09:05, 31 January 2005
  • By User:168.9.40.241, who has a dozen edits total.
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see most malls being notable. This is just advertising and, yes, racist. --InShaneee 03:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable ad. Dave the Red (talk) 03:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete most malls. Radiant_* 10:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I live close to this mall and have to agree with what is being said. It is unimportant, but it is factual for those that are going there.Chris Lindsey 03:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not advertising and it's not an orphan. Mirror Vax 14:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable, POV. If it's such a worthwhile article, I'd encourage one of the Keepers to clean the damned thing up. -- Dcfleck 15:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup the horrible racism in the article. 60% of the people in Atlanta are black. Get over it. Mike H 18:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Manuel Araullo

Article was created by a serial vandal -- haven't checked if this is legit or not yet, just bringing it to attention. Daniel11 08:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:30, 11 Apr 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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Margin of error (disambiguation)

This dismabiguation page contains only one meaning. 790 09:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The existence of this page makes me laugh. NeevaN 01:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• What's even funnier is that the page it links to says:

This page discusses the use of the term in opinion polling. For other uses, see margin of error (disambiguation).

BTW, that's the only page linking to that dab page. Delete —Wahoofive | Talk

• Delete, uselss disambig. Dave the Red (talk) 03:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• "Several subtly different meanings" then fails to explain why they are subtly different. Or indeed if such subtly different meanings exist. Delete. — JIP | Talk 04:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A dismabiguation page containing only one meaning is useless. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Martha Lane Fox

• Del. A one of many businesswomen, accomplished nothing notable. Mikkalai 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known in the UK due to the high profile of lastminute.com. sjorford →•← 08:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Co-founder of lastminute.com? A definite keep. Besides, they got me a couple of nice hotel rooms in London last year (lastminute.com, I mean, not Fox and Hoberman). --Calton | Talk 12:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, known outside the UK too as a dot-bomb survivor. --iMb~Meow 13:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable in the UK. Qwghlm 15:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. founder of a very well known company. -- Lochaber 11:03, 15 Apr 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?) 16:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Martin Collcutt

Some Guy marked this vfd on February 12, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 01:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete because this page is extremely narrow. The relevance of this article is doubtful. If wished, it could be moved to JnanaBase NeevaN 02:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maufty

• Integrate 68.224.13.160
• Comment: Er, right. Anyway, this was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 01:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Bright Noa or maybe Earth Federation. I'd say merge to Gundam, but I don't really see a good place in that article to merge to. Dave the Red (talk) 03:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Megan1967 07:34, 11 Apr 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?) 16:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael maher

Doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, which it was put up for, but clearly worthy of deletion--apparent vanity, nn, poorly written and formatted. Meelar (talk) 05:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no notability established. Slac speak up! 05:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. RickK 05:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 06:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. -- ChrisO 07:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, private concerns in article. jni 06:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mickey Morandini

While turning a unassited triple play is nice, i dont think it is worthy of an article in wikipedia. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Expanded article. Substantial major league career, named an All-Star; easily merits an article. MisfitToys 03:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. I never saw him play much, but anyone who followed baseball in the 1990s at least heard of him. We have articles on players who are much more obscure than Mickey Morandini. I don't think we should delete those and we definitely shouldn't delete this one. I see that six articles link to it anyway, so if it were to be deleted, it would just be a matter of time before it was created again. Why waste the effort? Dave Farquhar 05:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• keep! Unassisted triple play is very notable. It's only been done about ten times in Major League Baseball. Also, yeah, we have articles on lots of other players. FreplySpang (talk) 02:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 07:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep any and all professional sportspeople. Xezbeth 07:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; most baseball fans have at least heard of him; he did have a few notable career accomplishments; and Wikipedia is not paper. BTW, I'm getting a bit concerned about the way that voting breaks down in VfD. Megan1967, when was the last time you voted to keep an article on VfD? Kappa, when was the last time you voted to delete one? Are there people who go through and just answer "keep" or "delete" on everything? Firebug 09:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if someone is significantly more liberal than the Vfd average, most of their "delete" votes on "notability" issues will be superfluous, even if they agree. I don't need to vote delete when there's obviously a consensus to do so, that just clogs up the system. (Likewise with less-liberal voters). If I'm the first person around I sometimes vote delete, e.g. Halover. The problem is that we all agree people need some notability, but not how much. Incidentally I've seen Megan1967 make many significant "keep" votes. Kappa 10:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • While there are occasionally people who always vote the same without any explanation (recently-banned Recycling Troll comes to mind), Kappa and Megan certainly aren't among them. Radiant_* 11:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. And to be fair, although I disagree with both of them much of the time, I have seen Megan1967 vote keep on a few things, and Kappa vote to merge material on occasion. Meelar (talk) 19:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow I'm flattered by all the support. Thanks. Megan1967 09:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concurring with Firebug. Kappa 10:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--even players that don't turn an unassisted triple play and make the all-star team are notable. Meelar (talk) 16:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Major leaguer? All-star? Unassisted triple play?! Strong KEEP of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I was not aware that he was an All Star, sorry for the mistake. bakuzjw (aka 578) 19:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on All-Star selection and unassisted triple play. Strongly disagree with Xezbeth and Meelar, though: I don't think WP should attempt to list every player in every major league in every sport in every nation with leagues big enough to get attention. Otherwise I'll have to do an article on my buddy Ron Shephard because he once ran one NASCAR Winston Cup race. 205.247.102.130 20:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote was mine, not logged in. Barno 20:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, whether he made a triple play or not, he's at least as notable as all of the Malian soccer players we have articles on. RickK 00:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All Star player who played ten years of major league baseball and played in the Phillies 1993 World Series side. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is on the low end of notability when it comes to baseball players, but he still passes the bar by a fairly comfortable margin. Indrian 06:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. Wmahan. 20:42, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Delete FroggyMoore 23:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Froggy has gone on a spree of voting "Keep" on clear vanity articles and "Delete" on articles with majority Keep votes. Seems suspicious to me. RickK 22:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (block-compress error; pending deletion). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Midrash Mish Mosh

Fawcett5 marked this vfd on November 30, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 02:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:36, 11 Apr 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?) 17:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Milan Nick Bizic

• Utter nonsense. Yeah, that casting of "Troy" really sounds likely. I already speedy deleted this once. RickK 05:56, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Ya beat me to it. Delete. - Vague | Rant 05:57, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Beat me to it, too. (Edit conflict -- I backed out.) -- Hoary 06:01, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not vanity, however, but weak comedy, or perhaps a friendly hatchet job practical joke by this guy's buddies. -- Curps 06:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a factual article. Martijn Faassen 15:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it was listed on VfD, I think somebody removed it from the VfD page. RickK 02:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably fast if the vandalism continues. Stupid, boring nonsense. jni 06:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax/prank. Megan1967 07:37, 11 Apr 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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mission Man

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. a yahoo search revealed many webpages regarding this artist. he is notable enough to be reviewed by websites and to have his music available through different sources. Kingturtle 19:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article does not seem to estabilish anything. Grue 19:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Xezbeth 15:07, Apr 16, 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?) 17:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mitch Stone

Delete Non-notable, possibly vanity. 141.211.138.85 03:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting band history. 69.198.26.98 03:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, merge with Oasis article. 69.198.26.98 again
• Keep, little known but true oasis fact. 24.102.42.145
• Delete, unverifiable. Note suspicious anon votes above. Grue 19:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Wmahan. 20:44, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, possibly. --Neigel von Teighen 20:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge any noteable infomation to Oasis article. Vegaswikian 06:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mnemonic method of loci

Delete - first-person how-to - not an encyclopedia article. - DavidWBrooks 23:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mnemonic and add text noting that the method described as "ars memoria" at Mnemonic#History of mnemonics is also called the "method of loci." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears worthy of its own article[6][7], and the information at mnemonic could be included. Wmahan. 20:53, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Mnemonic, obviously, after a cleanup --Neigel von Teighen 20:55, 15 Apr 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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moore 24

The article is the text from a magazine (the user claims to have received permission to use it on wikipedia), doesn't actually talk about sail boats, rather discusses people (non-notable) that have sailed them. --nixie 00:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• What is the requirement for proof of permission to republish? If your prefer, it can be edited down, but it does talk quite a bit about the design/evolution of the Moore 24. Racing sailors do find this article interesting, and the people mentioned are notable in the sail boat racing world. (I gtabary, added signature) 63.198.177.76 07:18, 20 Jan 2005
• Condense and keep. This looks maybe a little long but makes sense. Maybe focus more on the technicalities. Probably discussed people is to much of fan material to be included in the WP. I'd say if not re-written in a while; then delete. Am not knowlegable in the domain, so I don't go into edit. Gtabary 09:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I've moved the article off the WP, and referenced it from a brief article here. Is that more acceptable? 63.198.177.76 06:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• How long will this article stay in limbo? 63.198.177.76 18:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Morningstar, Inc.

Looks like an ad. JoaoRicardo 07:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Morningstar is the most prominent financial analysis company. 128.135.223.61 06:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)jvanscoy
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Passes the google test, all related. Further looking shows it is quite an important company. 02:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very well known and important company in its field. Sheldrake 02:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very important company. Feco 03:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known company. Rhobite 05:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Well-known company. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very important company. JuntungWu 14:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Household word in investments. Their "style boxes" are used universally. Their star ratings are frequently cited (particularly in ads by companies with good ratings). As well known as, say Value Line. Current article is a not-impossibly-bad stub. Would be well worth expanding. Does not read as promotional language to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely worth keeping, though the page is extremely sparse. I actually came to learn how the rating system worked (1-3? 1-5?) but found there to be no info as of yet. Crick22 10:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Minor characters in SpongeBob SquarePants. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. SquarePants

I think that the article should either be merged with the exsisting tv show's article or deleted. There is no need to have an article with so little info about a minor tv show character. Coolgamer 19:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I added the header to this VFD. - Vague | Rant 06:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants#Characters. Or break it out into a separate article, Minor characters in SpongeBob SquarePants (really, only three or four character should get their own article–SpongeBob, Patrick, Squidward, Mr. Krabs, and maybe Sandy). Neutrality^talk 06:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect One way or the other, as N. suggests. Alai 10:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 02:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I agree with N. Satanicbowlerhat02:25 Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to SpongeBob_SquarePants#Minor Neutrality's points are agreeable. NeevaN 02:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (and move to better title) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bro. Larry Timmons

Non-notable person, improper title, highly POV, article does not corroborate accusations that the government was involved in his death, all speculation. RickK 02:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Compare Oscar Romero. Gazpacho 02:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The Romero article substantiates the accusations. This does not. RickK 02:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, POV essay. Megan1967 07:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article as currently written does not accuse the government of his death, but rather reports others accusations: "The Nakuru Diocese claimed in the local newspaper...". The governments version is also reported. The article seems to me to be NPOV. The account of in the article is largely cooroborated by this report. This source also implies that Timmons might be considered a martyr. The article of course can be moved to a better title. Which leaves the issue of notability. His case seems to have at least attracted the attention of the US State Dept. (here also and the European Parliament. Dsmdgold 11:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep POV concerns have been addressed, verifiable incident. However article should be renamed - Brother Larry Timmons? -- Lochaber 10:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, much improved. However, I would echo Lochaber's concerns about the article name. -- Dcfleck 15:34, 2005 Apr 16 (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 article already deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Waste of Time

Speedied twice as vanity. Alexa rank of 44,254. --InShaneee 02:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This site was linked to by the online version of the UK's Guardian Newspaper [8] check for "Dr Albert Oxford" Wickbam
• Keep The site is heavily trafficked and is of original content with some notable contributors CatCrofts 16:57, 11 Apr 2005

• Note that CatCrofts's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
• Note that I've actually contributed to 3 articles. Wickbam

• Speedied twice, speedy it again--nixie 03:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone report this to admins as a zombie-deleted article? If it's come and gone a few times, I think they can block the title from being re-created again. Feco 03:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that in Feco's previous 50 contributions, he has voted delete on 3 articles, proposed another article for deletion, and has not voted to keep any articles. CountMippipopolous
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Haven't found evidence of it being created or deleted previously. Also, I'd like to see the reasons for earlier speedy deletions. Besides, if it's described as a Something Awful clone it should be allowed to stay just as the other site. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery - but that doesn't mean the imitations are on par with the original, or, indeed, notable. SA -> 389k googles, PWOT -> 13k googles. Delete. Radiant_* 11:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • As said elsewhere, and indeed, in the article itself, pwot is not an imitation of sa. (Rather, they were started around the same time.) Also, "somethingawful" gives 113k googles, "pointlesswasteoftime" gives 15k. Keep merv

• Note that merv's contrib page [9] is blank... post-spoofing?

• Keep. This is a relatively popular website. The forum itself has over 4000 members, and the website has been referenced by Penny Arcade. Check this link and search for "wailing and lamentation." It links to a PWoT article. Sean Gray 11:56, Apr 11, 2005 (EST)

• Note that Sean Gray's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco

• I will openly admit a connection to the site. I don't see how that affects the validity of my argument, however. Sean Gray

Sean: It does not affect the validity of of your argument but it is policy that users who have only contributed to the article under discussion do not carry the full weight when forming a consensus about a proposal of deletion. --Theo (Talk) 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as re-creation of previously speedied material. Also suggest protection from re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it's been brought to my attention that one of the key reasons for this article's initial speedy was the fact it was at the time a poorly-written substub. No vote as of yet. --InShaneee 16:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if anything, being a "clone" of another site would make it less notable, not more, as it wouldn't even be innovative. Wikipedia is not a web guide. CDC (talk)
  • It's not a clone, it just deals in similarly text-based humor. That point is made quite clearly in the wiki. Pointless Waste of Time is innovative in the fact that many of its clearly humorous articles are taken seriously in forums and chat rooms all over the Internet. Do a google search for "Albert Oxford" and you'll find dozens of message boards full of people arguing why this clearly fictitious man is a moron because he claims that "the character of Elrond in Lord of the Rings is a rip-off of Agent Smith from the Matrix." Sean Gray
• Keep. Be sure to read the article fully before commenting on deletion. The article clearly states the site was made before SomethingAwful, hence it is not a clone. Note also that Jay Pinkerton, one of the largest contributors as noted, is the editor for the National Lampoon. The article needs some brushing up in terms of vanity, but once done it seems acceptable as a keeper. --Atolmazel 5:45 PM, 11 Apr 2005 (GMT)

• Note that Atolmazel's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco

• Note that ad hominem does not affect my rationality or lack thereof. Atolmazel

• But they do help decide whether or not you are a member of the Wikipedia community and are knowldgeable about Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note that ad Hominem is never acceptable in a debate, and considering how easy it is to become familiar with the guidelines, whether or not you are a "member of the community" is not a factor of the argument.YingPar
• As YingPar. If I have shown an ignorance of a particular policy, alert me to it. If any of the facts I have quoted are false, expose them. But to merely call me new, bias or ignorant without any explanation is a complete fallacy, and an unfair attempt to undercut my points without relevant confrontation.Atolmazel

• Y'all are confusing ad hominem arguments with ad hominem fallacies: identifying the source --and probable unreliability thereof-- of an assertion or argument is perfectly reasonable rhetoriacl technique. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think Wikipedia should be a "web guide." If it is ok to have articles on websites, then what is the criteria for chosing them? I think this is a good article, and the site itself seems very interesting. Why should it be deleted and "the best page in the universe" [10] not be? What's the difference? No vote as of yet. --Chammy Koala 17:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference is that some websites (e.g. yahoo) are more notable than others (e.g. splornik #17). The google test, while not always a good criterium, would be a decent way of measuring a website's popularity and impact. Of course there are no strict bars for the numbers, hence this discussion. Radiant_* 18:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I must declare a connection with the site but would like to point out the Alexa rankings for some of the other Category:Comedy websites: KTAB News (Ranked 1,886,406, article here since Nov 04), Landover Baptist Church (Ranked 45,872, article here since Jan 04) and Zombo.com (Ranked 143,341, article here since Jan 05). adamsan 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same as Adamsan. Also, previously deleted incarnations of the article have been substubs.--Wasabe3543 18:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This site has just as much a right to be here as Jibjab, Seanbaby, or any other self-proclaimed comedy site. Having it on here adds more knowledge to the subject of comedy websites, and does not deter anyone from learning. If this article is removed, it will be tried again in 6 months or so when someone else has the idea to try to put it up here. There must be a reason why this page keeps coming back. I may not have contributed much to Wiki, but I do read it quite often, and I know things like this help. I can not see how it can hurt. Bakudai
  • User's first edit was to the article, and has only been contributing under this name for two days.

• Keep. There is no valid reason for deletion. No harm will come to anyone in any possible way. The only consequences of having this article will be beneficial ones. YingPar
  • Note that YingPar's only edits are to the article, the Vfd page, and Argumentum ad Hominem. RickK 00:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I haven't yet seen any convincing arguments for deletion. The previous incarnations of the article were apparently poorly-written advertisements; this page conforms to basic wiki standards, it could arguably do with some NPOVing but that is a process that necessarily takes time. The relevance of Alexa rankings and Google results has been argued a hundred times before and I do not propose to repeat them; I have however already demonstrated that these criteria have not been applied to other comedy site articles. Some fans of the site have listed a few links with the mainstream media which although not compelling on their own, do build a case for inclusion. The initial reasons for deletion given by InShaneee are therefore not to my mind valid. The contributors who recommend a speedy delete appear to be unfamiliar with wiki policies themselves (WP:CSD) and proposing to block the article from recreation seems rather drastic given that it is not in any way offensive. The page does not conform to the criteria for Wikipedia:Vanity_page and I have to sincerely ask whether some of you have read the article or this encyclopaedia's policies.Keep. adamsan 21:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Just to summarize, the reasons for deletion seem to be 1) Clone of SomethingAwful 2)Been deleted before 3)Not notable. All three have been thoroughly refuted. 1) It has been established PWOT is older than SA, and in any case the arbitrary comparison is hardly grounds for deletion. 2) It has also been established that the older incarnation was substubs, created by an entirely seperate entity from the current entry. 3) Of the two people who have claimed it is 'not notable', neither have exhibited any knowledge of the content of the site itself. PWOT has been mentioned by Penny Arcade, The Guardian UK and has strong ties with National Lampoon. The goal of Wikipedia is to create a compendium of knowledge, this wiki does not go against that goal, in fact actively supports it. At best it needs to be cleaned up a little, deletion is completely out of the question. Atolmazel

• Keep. I'm not a big submitter to Wikipedia, but frankly I see no reason to delete this. Epilpir
  • User's only edit. RickK 00:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't an argument for removing the article, it's called ad Hominem and it's not cool. -YingPar
      • You do know the difference between ad hominem argument and ad hominem fallacy, don't you? --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete. --Kyknos 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I've been convinced.--Chammy Koala 23:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, sock puppet level has been broached. RickK 00:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • See above. You're not actually presenting an argument here. -YingPar
    • Neither are you presenting a counter-argument. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note RickK offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't have to. Everyone can look at the edit histories of all of these newbie editors and can see that they were created solely for the purpose of editing and voting on this article. In the Wikipedia environment, the term "sock puppet" means a User which was created to edit or vote on a particular article. Your edit histories speak for themselves. We don't need to prove that it's one User with multiple accounts. RickK 20:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a pointless waste of time.  :) — Helpful Dave 00:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a timeless point of waste. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
• Let the cryptic slang non-arguments and predictable puns speak for themselves.
• Keep - What kind of an encylopedia shuns knowlege? - Anonymous

Note (Insert obvious remark here) Chris talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Although the site isn't as famous as Something Awful, it is still relatively large (it surely isn't some random person's geocities page or something of that nature).CountMippipopolous

  Note User has 12 edits Chris talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Too many sockpuppets, and we've already had this. Chris

• Note Chriscf offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • As mentioned above, the previous reasons for deletion don't seem to apply. Concerning the "sockpuppet" allegation, I'm pretty sure we don't fit in the usual definition of a sockpuppet (a single person posting under many names). I assume you can check the IPs to make sure. Merv 05:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this sock-supported, already-deleted, no-need-to-waste-any-more-on-it pointless waste of time. Jonathunder 04:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

• Note Jonathunder offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• already voted above for a delete, but putting the note here.... page history shows more instances of one user editing/changing/removing another user's comments, but it's too complicated for me to try to revert back those inappropriate changes. Feco 04:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Webcruft, WP is not a web guide, sockpuppet supported. jni 05:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note Webcruft offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Somebody stop this guy from spamming please. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I would love to know how my pointing out several users' unfound arguments is spamming, while ad hominem attacks by the likes of Feco and Rickk made in exactly the same manner are considered acceptable. Sean Gray 15:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've yet to see a real reason for deletion rather than the cop out of "sock puppet" allegations. Wickbam

*Keep. Note — user changed vote to delete. This site has been online longer than most of those posting in here have. On a good day, there can upwards of approx. 30,000 hits on a popular article. An editor for a nationally recognized publication is a regular on the site. "John Dies at the End" will hopefully be released sometime in the future in a published form. The site itself has enough solid ground to support a wikipedia article (especially when something as inane as zombo.com is already a part of wikipedia). Have those that want the article deleted proved anything to the contrary? Have they even visited the site? Read the articles? If not, then how can they possibly make a claim to the validity? They cannot. Instead, they resort to childishly flinging notions of "sock puppeting" (unfounded) and the constant editing of the original article (Which was written by a "newbie" from the site, and was not approved by neither David Wong nor John Cheese, the site owners). As stated before, a quick check of each posters IP will show that we are not merely one poster trying to advertise his personal site. If any of the nay-sayers wish to continue to fling the sock puppet rant around, you can personally look me up at the Grinnell College website (http://www.grinnell.edu - email for name) to prove my existence. And yes, this is my only edit. I felt the need to sign up and protect Pointless Waste of Time from people who, without reason, wish to delete this thread. (EDIT: Forgot name. Grinnell007 1:26am, CST, 12 Apr 2005 AD)

• • User's second edit.

I'd just like to point something out here:

• "Y'all are confusing ad hominem arguments with ad hominem fallacies: identifying the source --and probable unreliability thereof-- of an assertion or argument is perfectly reasonable rhetoriacl technique."

Incorrect; if someone has made an error, the only correct response is to point out the error so that those who haved erred have a chance to refute the argument. Calling their experience in to question does not allow for the opponent a rebuttal, therefore it is not an acceptable debate technique. In any case, the article in question has still not been proved to have violated any of Wikipedia's regulations, ergo there is no reason for it to be removed. As for WP not being a "web guide," the precedent has been set many times before, and this new addition does not violate it. See: Something Awful, Landover Baptist Church, Zombo.com, et cetera. Now, if anyone can respond to those points, I will be shocked. -- YingPar

• • • The only correct response? I'm sorry, was this an Act of Congress that I missed? A UN Resolution?

See, that falls under a different rhetorical fallacy, namely "begging the question," whereby you assume the conclusion you're arguing for. The fact that you have to resort to these rhetorical games to "win" an argument pretty much tells me all I need to know about your sincerity and provides me enough information to comfortably dismiss what you have to say. --Calton | Talk 12:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Certainly. Read WP:WIN. In particular, WP is not a general knowledge base. From that, it can be inferred that WP is not a webguide (indeed, that would be Google or Yahoo). Thus, not every webpage deserves a WP article, and the argument that some webpages have an article is no grounds for giving all of them an article.
  • Then, read WP:SOCK. Votes from new or anonymous users are generally discounted to prevent exactly what people have been doing here. A person creating a dozen accounts for voting is just as invalid as a person dragging dozens of friends into WP for voting. Both are called sockpuppetry, and this thread is obviously being socked.
  • It has not been established that PWOT is anything special amongst the thousands of other similar forum-and-text sites. Therefore, the deletion vote stands - and after deletion, it should apparently be protected against recreation to prevent vandalism. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • • I have certainly read WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base. Please explain which one of the consensus criteria you feel this article conforms to without adding your own inferences. You may like to know that arguing by citing precendent is currently being considered as WikiPolicy and you may find yourself using that argument later to no avail.
    • I have read WP:SOCK It states that new users are only treated as sockpuppets if the article being voted for can be established to be vanity or advertising. This has been discussed above and it cannot be classified as a vanity page. If you wish to imply that there are fewer users voting for inclusion than it seems, then I hope you have evidence to back this up.

EDIT: WP:SOCK is semi-policy and only provides guidelines, let's judge this article on its merits and not the background of the editors.

• • • It has not been established that there is any reason to delete the page whilst maintaining other less well-written articles on less popular, less 'notable' sites. I say once again that this article is significantly different from its predecessors and should not be treated in the same way. Change vote to Strong Keep adamsan 11:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep

- Neithan you didn't sign. Chammy Koala 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far we have 17 votes keep and 13 delete/speedy. Unless I misscounted. Please keep all new votes below this point.--Chammy Koala 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • From a quick survey, 3 of the votes to keep are from users who have only really contributed to this vote. 2 of the votes have been changed, mine and Grinnell007. So 12 keep + 3 debated keeps to 15 delete.--Chammy Koala 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, votes by anonymous accounts and accounts which did not exist prior to the creation of this VfD listing are not ocunted. You might want to re-count with those criteria in mind. RickK 20:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to add that PWOT was also mentioned on the front page of [Halo.Bungie.org] for an article. - Bakudai

• Delete Do we really need to have this here? I am from the site's forums, and I think it is a stupid idea to have a Wikipedia entry about the site. if anyone is at all interested in Pointlesswasteoftime.com the best source is http://Pointlesswasteoftime.com (makes sense huh?). The humor isnt conveyed through the Wikipedia article, and I think the idea of explaining a humor website here is a little bit odd. The site is easy enough to navigate that anyone who ever IS interested in the site is better off simply checking the site out for themselves. All this is then is an article for a website that needs no explaination. Delete it. --Fermun 17:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This account apparently created simply to make this vote. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me when all of these new editors with axes to grind suddenly show up and try to explain our policies to us. As I've said in other places, which the new accounts would obviously have not read since they've never been to Wikipedia before the campaign to keep this article, if an article can't stand on its own merits, but must rely on the invalid votes of people who came here solely for the purpose of voting keep, then it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Thus my vote above. RickK 20:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm 1/2 of the PWoT writing team. I'd rather brush my teeth with a wood-file than have a PWoT entry on this site. "Deserve" to be on Wikipedia? Please, for the love of God, delete this retarded entry before I vomit blood. -John Cheese

• possible sock-puppet... or it might really be the owner/creator of www.PWoT.com. In either case, new wiki account. Brings up interesting point... copyright holders can demand their content be removed, but can subjects of articles ask wiki not to cover them? If Bill Gates emailed tomorrow w/ a req to delete his article would/should/could we listen? </navel gazing> Feco 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just to comment on the above question, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monica de Bruyn for a discussion on this. No vote. Alarm 23:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Email johncheese@pointlesswasteoftime.com, and I'll be happy to let you know in detail what I think. John Cheese

• • • Note that John Cheese's only contribs are in relation to this article. He may be a robot; possibly even one from outer space.

• (already voted above) A visit to WP:POINT might also be useful... it addresses the argument: "well, articles A, B and C are about less-notable subjects, therefore my article D has a right to belong in wiki if those articles are in." Feco 20:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right... it does. "If someone lists one of your favourite articles on VfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do argue vehemently on VfD in favour of your article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples." I don't get it, have you switched your opinion or something? Merv 20:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• like many things in wiki, WP:POINT tries to convey both sides of something without editorial bias, thus "consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem" on the same page as "do argue vehemently on VfD in favour of your article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples". I feel the information in WP:POINT is useful to both "sides" in this discussion, and was providing it for the benefit of all who cared to read. My vote, however, remains as above. I will change it in response to continued discussion here. Feco 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No body gives a crap whether your vote is changed or not. I'm personally begging you to LEAVE IT AS A VOTE FOR DELETE. The quicker we get this entry off of this site, the sooner I'll stop considering setting myself on fire. John Cheese

• While I voted for "Keep" above, one of the site's owners has come forward and requested a delete. Since he is, indeed, part-owner of the site, and does not wish for this article to be up, then delete it. There's no more reason for it to be up, period. Grinnell007
• Keep. For wiki consistency -- plenty of other websites are on here. Sorry, John. Tlogmer
• Keep. MicahMN | Talk 01:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We cannot allow John to kill himself over this. I think he makes a valid point in his "deserve" comment. We should wake up to ourselves.--Chammy Koala 09:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Cna't see an honest reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn timewastecruft. ComCat 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote Count

• You're not counting any of the 'delete' votes as questionable? --InShaneee 19:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose Fermun and John Cheese are "debatable" as well. I really would rather not count any of the "debated" votes, and I don't want to spend ages figuring out who is valid. If someone else wants to make a list of the invalid votes then they're free to.--Chammy Koala 21:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's proof that it's actually me: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/johncheese/wiki.htm John Cheese

Holy shit! That sockpuppet just hacked PWOT! Atolmazel 21:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry John, I already believe that it's you, but the problem is on Wiki votes, it doesn't just matter if you are who you say you are, - and not a "sock puppet" - but we don't really count votes from people who have done nothing but vote on this one thing. I'm happy to count your vote, but it's not just up to me. I'm sure it will influence a lot of votes anyway, such as mine.

Would it help if I replaced all the text in that article with goatse? John Cheese

That would certainly get you permanently blocked from Wikipedia. RickK 04:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't want that. Because then, I wouldn't be able to get on here to remind myself why I hate humans. Plus, it would really suck to have to take that 10 seconds to spoof my IP address to get around the ban. The vote's gone on long enough... we have an overwhelming majority of people with no life asking for a delete, so let's do just it. John Cheese

• • So now we have 2 more delets and 3 more keeps. One of the deletes is from John Cheese, I believe it really is him. Total: 15 keep + 3 debated keeps to 15 delete + 2 debated deletes.--Chammy Koala 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Your count is highly flawed. How in the world did you come up with 15 keeps? As I indicated above, anonymous posters and the votes of people whose IDs did not exist prior to the VfD listing are not counted. I only count possibly three valid keep votes. RickK 23:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just counted the obvious ones that were red. If you count 3 keep, how many delete?--Chammy Koala 00:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just doing a cursory scan, I got 12. RickK 00:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • Verified Vote Count- below is a table showing every registered (non-anonymous) user and their votes. The letter code FC means the user's First Contribution to wiki was in relation to PWoT AND they have less than 50 total contributions. Note that this information is up-to-date as of the RickK post immediately before this one. Note also that the names listed are User's actual account names, which may vary from the signatures used above: Feco 02:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

x	Keep	Wickbam			FC
x	Keep	CatCrofts		FC
x	Keep	merv			FC
x	Keep	Sean Gray		FC
x	Keep	Atolmazel		FC
x	Keep	Bakudai			FC
x	Keep	YingPar			FC
x	Keep	Epilpir			FC
x	Keep	CountMippipopolous	FC
1	Keep	Tlogmer
2	Keep	Micahmn
3	Keep	Irishpunktom
4	Keep	MacGyverMagic
5	Keep	Kyknos
6	Keep	adamsan
7	Keep	Wasabe3543
x       Keep    Wesleywatson            FC

x	Delete  Fermun			FC
x	Delete	John Cheese		FC
1	Delete	Petaholmes
2	Delete	Feco
3	Delete	Megan1967
4	Delete	Radiant
5	Delete	Starblind
6	Delete	Cdc
7	Delete	Jayjg
8	Delete	RickK
9	Delete	Helpful Dave
10	Delete	Calton
11	Delete	Chris
12	Delete	Jonathunder
13	Delete	jni
14	Delete	Chammy Koala

• I've made contributions to wikipedia months before this, as my contributions page shows (in fact I seem to remember making more, but I suppose I wasn't logged in for them, but the point remains that I've made contributions). If you can't determine when my first contributions were made, I would doubt the accuracy of your list; however, after seeing that the owner does not want the article, I change my vote to a Delete.CountMippipopolous

Not that I care that much anymore, but I had always thought people had needed a *reason* to delete an article. Just sayin'. Atolmazel 08:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Am I to understand that only my 51st vote and beyond will be counted?CatCrofts 09:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity, as shown by fans piling in. Also clue in the name. --Henrygb 10:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we've already established it isn't vanity. adamsan 10:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We've certainly established that it's a pointless waste of time. --Calton | Talk 11:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, nice wit penis breath.

I'm begining to undertand what Cheese is talking about. adamsan 11:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Unless this one article somehow fills up the rest of Wiki's storage space, I see no reason to delete it. I am Wesleywatson, and I approve this article. --Wesleywatson 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

How long did it take you spend making that table, Mr. Feco? That's quite an impressive effort for such a Pointless Waste of Time! Ha! Get it? But seriously, you'd make a great contribution to the fabulous world of American social politics. You're already an expert; just keep ignoring any actual relevent information and go straight at 'em! Opponent's plan ineffectual? More like opponent's plan innefagtual! Good times! I love Ad Hominium. Your bestest buddy, YingPar

• I especially love how that table cuts out votes for people that wanted it kept. What are you, 12?

Eleven, actually, next summer. I expect you'll be there? Presents are uneccassary, of course; I'd rather hate to have myself indebted to all my friends, you know. Ha ha!

• Keep Could do with some editing (ie; to remove vanity) but is otherwise a worthy contribution. The site is very popular and has been around for a considerable time. I can see reason to delete, it is very similar to the 'Fark' and 'Something Awful' articles, albeit, not as lengthy of deep.

• Does the website owner's view count for more than another voter? And are the FC votes to be ignored for sure?

• Actually, upon reflection, I see nothing wrong with the article. I would like to change my irrelevant vote to keep. John Cheese

• Double-take. Vote changed back to Delete. John Cheese

• keepdelete just about notable enough, but could do with some work to tidy it up once the vandals get bored. Thryduulf 20:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • actually I've changed my mind. The vandalism of my user page has resulted in this change of vote. If the page gets deleted make sure to protect it blank. Thryduulf 20:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or just speedy it. Xezbeth 20:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Do we have an opinion of the site's owner? See also discussion on WP:AN/I about the calling to arms of the vandals. Mgm|^(talk) 20:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• keepGeni 20:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete Only 557 references on google. Not enough for a website. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and supported by a surplus of sockpuppets vandals. (Vote changed, see below.) --Carnildo 21:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Err they ain't supporting it they are trying to get rid of it (I admit it is normaly the other way around)
  • In that case, I'm changing my vote. Keep. Borderline notable, and the vandals want it gone. --Carnildo 23:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• which means, the easiest course of action is deleting it. Who wants to give free publicity to a bunch of assholes?

(Comment by 128.125.54.22)

• Delete - Really not notable, especially for this kind of vandalcruft. – ClockworkSoul 21:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote. They want it gone, I don't feel that I should help them. You know, there's more of us than there is of them: we could swamp the hell out of their little board, if we had the inclination... – ClockworkSoul 21:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote keep. Was borderline notability, so I'm now voting to keep out of spite. When it passes I'm making it a featured article, complete with screenshots. – ClockworkSoul 21:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So you mean a bunch of vandals only need to spam us to get something deleted? That would set a real bad precedent. Mgm|^(talk) 21:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• You know what's also a bad precedent? Keeping an article that few people deemed worthy of inclusion until they decided they would vote "keep" just to spite vandals.

Oh I dunno we've got some pretty good artilces from following that logic in tha pastGeni 21:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Still, we shouldn't vote based on the vandals. The first few keep votes established enough notability. Keep. We shouldn't let vandals decide what's included. Mgm|^(talk) 21:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• You -are- voting based on vandals, just not -with- the vandals. It's like shunning pop music because it's popular; you're still basing a decision on someone else's decision.

• DELETE Seriously, delete it, and it will all be over. Try our board if you want, but seriously, we don't want to be here anymore. a few of us wanted it at first, now we don't. Bakudai
  • This user is a "mole troll". – ClockworkSoul 22:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I've been a wikipedia contributor for a pretty long time, and a PWOT regular. I don't know what a mole troll is, and it sounds unflattering, but Bakudai has been fairly non-insane regular over there; he's not just stirring up shit for the sake of it. And while of course I can't speak for anyone who's vandalized the site, I will add that most of us have no interesting in pissing on the wiki. The PWOT forums have a very large user base, but the (apparently substantial) number of vandals make up a small minority. Tlogmer (Talk) 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • When I posted a fairly nice note to Bakudai, he immediately reposted it onto the PWOT boards, with the suggestion the he was "gaining my trust". I would have ignored it, but the fact that he referred to me as "Cockwork" suggested that his intentions were not entirely honorable. Unlike most of those that vandalized here, his block is of finite duration. – ClockworkSoul 02:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't able to locate the post on the PWOT boards -- it may have since been deleted. Do you still have the text? If so, I could look at it to verify that he was indeed being an asshat and not making a circumspect joke not intended specifically to insult you (PWOT humor can be a bit impenetrable to outsiders.) Tlogmer (Talk) 02:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't :/ I didn't think to save it. If you feel that an unblock is warranted, however, I won't protest too strongly. – ClockworkSoul 02:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, I missed the main (newer) thread on this whole mess on PWOT -- I'd been reading the older thread -- so I didn't see all the stuff about directed vandalism. And while I have to admit that I find PWOTers vandalizing the PWOT wiki entry kind of funny, vandalizing other pages on the wiki isn't cool. Do what you have to do; I don't have the time or energy to follow this properly (especially since it's the weekend now). Tlogmer (Talk) 02:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright, I'm changing my vote to Delete. John, half the PWOT writing team, has stated clearly several times that he doesn't want the article on here. The wiki doesn't have to obey his wishes, of course, but he's really fucking motivated and him and his followers will suck up a lot of your time and energy if you're determined to keep the article here. I'd say you're faced with a choice:
          • Delete it. Your troubles will end instantly. (Of course, you'll have appeased people you don't want to appease. They're people obsessed with this particular issue, though, not general-purpose vandals who'll give you trouble in the future.
          • If you're too worried about setting a bad precedent by caving in, you could go to war: contact John's ISP, etc. Obvisouly I don't want this to happen because I really like his writing and the more time he spends fighting silly legal battles the less writing he does. I don't think you'll get him to cave any other way, though. (Talk) 02:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good luck to the poor admin who has to do the count when this VfD closes. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete John Cheese, half of the site's writing team, said he didn't want it on here. (My vote isn't going to be counted anyway) --HorustheElder 22:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

first edit to wikipediaGeni 22:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article may need improvement but that is not grounds for deletion and I can find no other grounds (it is not vanity and it appears to be notable, albeit mildly, by association). I found the article quite (in the UK sense) interesting. Oh, and if John Cheese could refrain from suicide in the event of the article being kept, I would be grateful. --Theo (Talk) 23:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. Also, this VfD is a pointless waste of time. --cesarb 01:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 119 01:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• After thinking about it for a while, it's pretty borderline (although the temptation to say "keep", to stick it to the twerps who hang out on that board, was one I had to work on to resist). It's just one more web-based electronic community, and on the edge as to whether it's notable enough for an article. (And it's basically irrelevant whether Cheese wants it gone or not - since when did we let the subjects of our articles tell us whether or not we could have articles on them? He gets one vote, same as everyone else.) Noel (talk) 02:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kuralyov 02:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • This article needs to be deleted and protected from ever becoming an article again. It will be a waste of admin time dealing with the things John Cheese has planned if it isn't deleted. This whole thing is a joke. Let's focus our time on more important WP articles. --Chammy Koala 03:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Alright. I nominated this thing, I figure it's time I finally took a stance. Originally, I only listed this because I thought that was the proceedure for previously speedied articles. However, several point have been brought to my attention. Firstly, the speedied articles had 1-2 sentences, so these were definatly not the same article (my bad). Combined with the cited claims to notability provided above, I don't see a convincing enough case for deletion. --InShaneee 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Delete Half the writing team wants it deleted, the other half knows of the situation and has put forth no objections to the deletion request. The point is, by deleting the entry you are hardly 'giving in', the votes were clearly heading in the delete direction. By then voting the opposite way once John Cheese says he wants it deleted is childish and asinine. Don't bother stating that I am a new user. I am a new user, I registered to submit my desire to have this article deleted. 5 Days is up. Do the tally and do what you have to do, but for heaven's sake, don't break your own policies over this --Ruteger

• Delete. Seems like the logical decision when you have your arm stuck inside an angry hornet's nest is to take it out. -- Teh Bomb Sophist P.S., I have at least six Wiki edits by now. Sockpuppet status: revoked. I can make more speedy link additions if you want me to.

• Comment What're the votes at? --Prophet

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the 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?) 18:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Man date

As the article clearly states, this term was coined for a particular article. Neologism, nn. RickK 03:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Copyvio. While it's true that the writer of the NYT article coined the term, the phenomenon is real and the article has gotten a lot of attention. I could imagine people coming to Wikipedia for a summary of the term (and the buzz surrounding it) and I'd like them to find an article on the topic. Note: This is, unfortunately, a copyvio, with most of the text taken from the New York Times article. Worthy topic in my mind, but this isn't the article to cover it. Moncrief 04:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there is noting encyclopedic about a meeting between two men. If man date turns into metrosexual in a couple of months (the NYT article is a few days old) then this neologism may need to be reconsidered. Keep it deleted after the copyvio is dealt with.--nixie 04:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Boy, that was fast. In any case, from the article in question: Although "man date" is a coinage invented for this article, appearing nowhere in the literature of male bonding (or of homosexual panic).... Neologism, and Wikipedia need not be the vehicle for turning this into Jennifer 8 Lee's "metrosexual". Delete until it actually becomes widespread and not something from a Times thumbsucker. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 07:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - in the area of mispelld redirects, adding one to mandate may be appropriate? Radiant_* 18:13, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism invented in a two-day old NY Times article. What's funny is I just read the article and thought "I bet some idiot already tried to make an article out of this term." Lo and behold, I find it... Postdlf 18:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vincent Margera

Being the cousin of someone from jackass doesn't make a person encyclopedia worthy, delete --nixie 03:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, he's a main character on Viva La Bam. Rhobite 04:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Since we haven't VFD'd Phil and Ape, I think he should stay too. Mike H 07:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability does not automatically spread through a family. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if he's a major character on Viva La Bam as Rhobite says. Kappa 10:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as Rhobite says. Mushroom 14:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - Darwinek 08:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Collins.mc 14:46, 23 Apr 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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abagnale

Advertisement/ no chance of becoming encyclopedic 128.227.3.97 02:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Band vanity Dsmdgold 10:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this vanity junk --Coolcaesar 19:07, 15 Apr 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, already transwikied (pending delete; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Postmaster (slang)

Dicdef, and obscure at that. No potential merge or redirect. Already been transwikied, so now should be deleted.--Dmcdevit 03:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vegaswikian 06:16, 16 Apr 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?) 18:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schlock

Pure dicdef. I see little potential here, and no need for a redirect. Already been transwikied. --Dmcdevit 03:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ARCHILAB

Comments from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation:

By User:Pierregrenier in French. -- Infrogmation 18:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this page should be sent for deletion. It's not an article. It looks like a newspaper article and copyvio. It's about an architects' conference that happened in 2001 and was written BEFORE the conference. Looks like a sort of announcement that it will happen, with some general statements about architecture. What do people think? Mona-Lynn 21:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the noticeability of ARCHILAB per se can not be established (which would imply to do a mayor rewrite) I would concur with you Lectonar 06:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Listing for deletion is fine by me. I wanted to run it by someone with a better grasp of French before deciding to do that. -- Infrogmation 06:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The text is kind of dull, really. Charles Matthews 11:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't read at all like an encyclopedia article or anything that could be mangled into one. I have listed it on VfD. — Ливай | ☺ 04:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I presume this is ARCHILAB's site: [11], seems like a real enough architectural conference - 2004 was it's sixth year. Probably article-worthy. This article is a French press release though, needs much attention. --bainer 05:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure if they vote is needed... but it'd be a shame to have it deleted before even translated... (unless copyvio). gren 03:48, 16 Apr 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?) 18:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fundagelical

Neologism. Only link is to Dake-bonoism, which is also up for deletion. RickK 04:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism.Feco 04:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 07:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This isn't a term the poster made up - I've seen it before on freethinker websites, and Google shows 770 hits. Still, there isn't enough here for a full article. Redirect to fundamentalist. Firebug 09:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the way it's used here, a redirect to fundamentalist Christianity might work better. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have seen this term used quite often on religious forums. It's usually used in a derisive context. --Randolph 01:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the original editor didn't make it up, it's still a neologism. --Angr/_comhrá 18:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sal_Calabro

Delete as vanity/advertising. A google for "Sal Calabro"+plastic returns 985 hits. A quick skim says most of those are www advertising link spam. Is Howard Stern connection enough to give this guy notability? I say no.Feco 04:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough for me. Not badly written. Moncrief 04:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough here, as for 985 hits, i have seen articles on here that hit a lot less yet we still have article for them. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable celebrity surgeon. Megan1967 07:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I couldn't name him, but even I recognise the face. Chris talk back 17:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Vegaswikian 05:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I wrote the article because Calabro is well-known as a Howard Stern regular, just like many other regulars about whom other articles have been written. Gladmax
• Delete Not encyclopedic in the sense that it is about a person only known in the U.S and if we're going to write an article on every half-known television-person... well... Thechamelon 00:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 18:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autosexuality

This page refers to people who have sexual attraction to themselves therefore they are gay. This concept is not widely known; plus it sounds like a rare concept.

• Redirect and merge to Homosexuality. I cannot imagine people who are autosexual. It would be like the earth only having one road to travel on. --TheSamurai 03:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I would suggest redirect to Narcissism. RickK 03:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that the page does not actually say that autosexuals are gay, but that some people consider them to be so. FreplySpang (talk) 03:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• May as well keep it, as nothing can rightly be discredited. Let it develop. --Asriel86 04:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing can be verified either. Keep if references to articles on autosexuality in psychology journals are added, otherwise delete. Don't merge with Narcissism, though, which seems to be primarily nonsexual in nature and which is already long enough for about three articles. --Angr/_comhrá 05:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • PubMed turns up a few discussions of autosexual behavior from a variety of authors,
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 07:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If nothing else, this explains the autofellatio craze around here. --iMb~Meow 12:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for growth. Shimmin 13:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• U guys aren't getting my proposal; 1st of all, Autosexuality is rarely heard of therefore this article is superfluous. I suggest a redirect and merge to Homosexuality since it is just a version of homosexuality. --TheSamurai 21:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No we heard your first vote, and dont agree. Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 22:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Really, anyone who has taken a human development course has probably run into this term. One old text I have defines it as "The love of oneself; the stage at which the child becomes aware of himself or herself as a source of sexual pleasure, and consciously experiments with masturbation." The ideas that this is unusual (as suggested by the current article) or "rarely heard" (as suggested by SamuraiClinton) are odd. --iMb~Meow 23:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Kyknos 23:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have heard of this term before, and also there is a term for someone who is sexually attracted to no one. However, if you all still want a vote, I'll err on the side of inclusion and vote keep. Zscout370 00:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• REDIRECT to narcissism 132.205.95.62 02:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly how are you gay if you're attracted to yourself? If you're attracted to others of your sex, you're gay. If you're attracted to yourself, you're a narcissist... If you're attracted to yourself to the exclusion of all else, you're still a narcissist...
    • You seem to be claiming that narxissism is different than gayness; I think it is a form of gayness. Also, nobody is getting my POV; I want this redirected and merged to Homosexuality.
• KEEP this is a very specific pratice that has NOTHING to do with narcissism any more then masterbation does, nor with homosexuality, etc
• Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm convinced there's enough to be said about it for it to have its own article. I look forward to its growth. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Strongly against merging with homosexuality - they are different orientations. Srcastic 05:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a valid, unbiased definition and does not imply that autosexuality = gay Joel Gilmore 06:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but ensure this does not fill up with nonsense again. Not the same thing as homosexuality. -- Karada 07:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note that User:SamuraiClinton went against current consensus, merged the content of Autosexuality into Homosexuality, removed the VfD notice, redirected, and then "closed" this VfD discussion. I have since reverted the discussion but have not reverted any of the other changes. android↔talk 14:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite distinct from Homosexuality and Narcissism. It could well refer to a practice for those who have no other "normal" outlet. I can't believe that User:SamuraiClinton aka TheSamurai is still on the loose still creating all this finger callousing. ;-) hydnjo talk 17:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep especially since the queer reference is removed. I have stumbled across that word before there even was a Wikipedia, hence the entry is perfectly legit. If there is really a considerable debate about whether it qualifies as queer/gay/lesbian/homosexual, a seperate paragraph should be added, because AFAIK, usualy it is not. -- AlexR 17:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've really and truly tried to help SamuraiClinton, but if this behavior continues, I may file an RfC. Sam, if you're reading this, please straighten up! - Lucky 6.9 18:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not merge. Autosexuality has nothing to do with homosexuality (or heterosexuality) --Carnildo 19:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Would autosexuality relate at all to muscle worship? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 19:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do not merge. There's an article on this in my psychology book, I think. Thechamelon 00:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do not merge. Also should be added to the sexual_orientation article along with asexuality. Ted-m 00:01, Apr 17, 2005 (EDT)
• Keep do not merge, I can see clearly how autosexuality (sexual orientation) could be different from both narcissism (psychology), and homosexuality (alternate orientation, same sex is incidental not chosen here), and masturbation (sexual act). FT2 18:48, Apr 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 no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Philips phile

NN, of limited notability. RickK 04:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, stationcruft. Megan1967 07:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be notable and long-running, has a respectable 8,180 Google hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. -- Dcfleck 16:19, 2005 Apr 16 (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?) 18:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

YorZ

Delete as non-notable. Google for YorZ+referral gives 27 hits.Feco

• Delete, promotion for minor internet site. -- Dcfleck 16:21, 2005 Apr 16 (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?) 18:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dougersize

2 sentences on an internet only film that gets 1 google hit, not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 04:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Only 148 people have ever watched it [12], and they rated it 16%. --bainer 05:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:50, 11 Apr 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?) 18:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of referential songs

This is another SamuraiClinton special. This article is utter nonsense. It might make a decent article, but what is here now makes no sense. It doesn't explain how any of the songs refer to the other songs listed. RickK 04:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I see he's on a bit of a spree right now. Rhobite 04:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The title is meaningless anyway. —Wahoofive | Talk 05:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, uninformative and nonencyclopedic list. --Angr/_comhrá 05:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect. There's an existing list of these, it's called List of answer songs at the moment, but it should be moved back to List of songs which refer to other songs or somewhere. Kappa 10:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial list. Why does the name SamuraiClinton keep popping up in these discussions? Should we RFC him then? Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • What is your opinion of List of answer songs? Kappa 10:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not particularly happy with it, as it's rather hard to make a song that cannot be construed to refer to (or answer to) another song, and several of the entries are wildly speculative (e.g. The main guitar riff of "Top Of The World" by Van Halen sounds like the riff heard at the end of "Jump" by the same band). Bands often refer to themselves, their fans, their predecessors, anything. And note that said list diverges widely from the definition at Answer songs (if your point was that 'referential songs' is a better title, I fully agree). I'd prefer to have the relevant trivia covered under the articles on the bands (or albums) - e.g. "the song <foo> by this band is often regarded as a parody (etc) of <bar>." Radiant_* 11:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no significant content, unclearly defined list. Please note that "answer songs", by contrast, were a real phenomenon in recorded music, primarily in the blues and R&B genres. "Answer songs" had a clear definition: not "something in the song could be construed as referring to some other song", which is unverifiable and can't form a complete list, but "song was written as a direct response to a song popular at the time, and whose lyrics make that clear." List of answer songs is legitimate and belongs under its current title; nobody seems to have called them "referential songs". Barno 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since List of answer songs contained a too-broad definition which included merely referential songs, I've edited that article and its talk page. Help would be appreciated in trimming non-answer songs from that list. I do not believe the "answer song" article or list should include referential songs or be retitled thus. Barno 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I've also added a bit of history to the Answer song article, which incorrectly suggested that the idea originated in hip-hop music. You kids today think you invented sex; why, back in my day, with punchcards... {fades into unintelligible muttering} Barno 19:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grand_Master

Delete as redundant and re-direct to Grandmaster -67.101.9.98 04:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Do we really need a vote on this? Why not just convert to a redirect page? Anyway, if we need to vote, my vote is redirect (and, if necessary, merge).—msh210 05:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grandmaster. jni 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and Grandmaster, and make sure there are links between them. The different spellings do separate the two terms, so a merge is not really in order. Sjakkalle 06:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid disambiguation page. Putting all alternative meanings in a header would litter Grandmaster. Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Grandmaster since people are very likely to confuse the two spellings. If that must then become a disambig, fine with me. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Could someone explain me what is the difference between the terms? "Grand Master" with capital M is always a title, "grandmaster" or "grand master" can be used either as a title (when capitalized) or as a noun for person who has high level of ability in something, is this correct? All dictionaries I checked group all meanings into one entry. jni 10:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a disambiguation page here, and different organizations use different spellings for this term. In chess "Grandmaster" is the normal term, but "Grand Master" is used at other places. I noticed that "Grandmaster" for chess is listed in this article, it is misplaced, it should be in the Grandmaster article. I think I'll move it away. Sjakkalle 13:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • There are some misplaced "Grand Master"s in the Grandmaster page as well. It is confusing. Sjakkalle 13:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • What the heck, trying to fix this confused me now. I change my vote, just merge them together. Sjakkalle 13:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's really not that confusing, as the top of the grandmaster disambiguation clearly says that "grandmaster and/or Grand Master could mean..." and the different spellings are clarly listed in each instance. Indeed, the difference in spelling is very minor (just a space) - and indeed, the contenets of grandmaster already contain everything that Grand Master has, and then some - it seems like a perfect merge to me. -66.108.104.78 18:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be a valid disambiguation page. No need to go anywhere, as Grand master and Grandmaster don't have the same definition in all cases. --Randy 11:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Since Grand Master and Grandmaster were already largely redundant (and potentially confusing - the meaning may be clear to some, but not all as evidenced by this VfD), I've been bold and merged them together. Can we just close this VfD and redirect Grand Master to Grandmaster? Radiant_* 13:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Seems obvious, really. -66.108.104.78 18:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment What's all the talk about "delete?" Just make it a redirect. Anyone could have done this without bringing it to VfD, by the way.
• Redirect to Grandmaster. Radiant_* has already done the merge. I'm going to Be bold and do it now. If anyone has a big problem with this, well, you can revert it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FactBites

"founded in 2005". RickK 04:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Crush. —Wahoofive | Talk 05:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an ad. No third party references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Leave. I'm the guy who just posted this article, and I'm very willing to change whatever seems wrong about it if I can get some specific feedback. I thought I'd modelled it pretty closely on Wikipedia articles on other search engines of a similar size or level of interest - see Gigablast, Dogpile, Wisenut, Hotbot, snap, teoma, Kartoo, and Webcrawler, for example. I can't quite see what this article does differently to those. Please explain so I can change it! 13 Apr 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alvin Carpenter

Not notable. Delete. —msh210 05:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 10:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Left anarchism, and Left-Anarchism

Non-notable term, would say redirect, but it's too obscure a term to even be useful as that. Term not used by anarchists themselves, nor by general public, so it isn't justified.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC), or redirect of course-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 21:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The term comes up in Google 3920 times (after subtracting "post-left anarchism" even). The Anarchism article includes more types of anarchism than Left Anarchism. RJII 05:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  No, it comes up 373 times. [13]  :) — Helpful Dave 13:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  You did the search wrong. You need to put "post-left" in quotes like this: [14] otherwise the hyphen in "post-left" is a minus sign. RJII 15:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: this term is an exclusively anarcho-capitalist term, which is used to refer to anti-capitalist anarchists. All forms of anarchism listed on that page would fall under that definition, despite RJII's claims to the contrary.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This page should be kept, because it is perhaps a better established name than the other alternative Anarchism (anti-capitalism) which although more descriptive, is not so thoroughly established in the literature.--Silverback 05:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, though redirect is fine with me as well. The concept of rewriting the history of Anarchism or redefining what Anarchism means is a lot more notable than the term. This revisionism deserves to be explained in an encyclopedia. Rl 07:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an intriguing suggestion, but it does not need its own article. It would make sense as a section within anarcho-capitalism explaining that phenomenon.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 07:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The term is not revisionism at all, but a term used to differentiate socialist anarchisms from other kinds (such as anarcho-capitalism and some forms of individualist anarchism) For example, this noted in Anarchist Theory FAQ and in this:Anarchism: Two Kinds. RJII 16:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop using original research as citation. Those two sources come straight from the same camp which is trying to use the term "Left Anarchism" as leverage. --albamuth 03:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Anarchism, which should be interpreted as "delete" for the purposes of this Vfd. Note that the Anarchism article is about "left anarchism". This is a duplicate.  :) — Helpful Dave 13:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A redirect doesn't work, as all anarchism isn't left anarchism. It's a bad redirect --not precise. RJII 17:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't matter. Lots of things redirect where the article is more general than the redirect page; e.g., Type 1 diabetes redirects to Diabetes mellitus. (This is not a vote.) —msh210 13:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Not-quite-so-helpful-Dave (talk)
• Keep, and merge most of the current anarchism article into it. The disambig page should be @ Anarchism. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect This is so obviously a partisan attempt by a small anarcho-capitalist support group to control the dialogue of the anarcho-capitalist/anarchist debate that it isn't even funny, just sad. Kev 18:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that the some of the people who are for redirecting are those who delete any mention of the term "left anarchism" in the Anarchism article. Go figure. It either means something or it doesn't. RJII 18:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. But if it comes to redirect or keep, then I'd say redirect.Mattley 12:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merge most of the current text on anarchism to this location. - Nat Krause 06:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anarchism. --cesarb 00:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Either DELETE or Something Entirely Different *Hum* Why not simply make a short note at this page: "Left-Anarchism" is a catchall term, used primarily by opponents, describing anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, etc. Virgin Molotov Cocktail 05:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete or go with Virgin Molotov Cocktail's suggestion. I looked at the web search done above by RJII, and the great majority of the sites listed were from opponents of anarchism, or were anarchist sites which rejected the term. millerc 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but those opponents are many and noteable. There is no good reason to censor this term from Wikipedia. RJII 13:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. This term was created by so-called "Anarcho-capitalists" in order to marginalize anarchists, as part of the ongoing debate within the anarchism article. This is like a religious group creating a page called "heathen christians" to distinguish their own church.--albamuth 03:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Anarchism is a well defined historical term, left-anarchism is an obscure neologism. This page, and the efforts to merge Anarchism into it, is either the result of extreme historical ignorance or an active effort to subvert the meaning of the word Anarchism. 80.203.115.12 13:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How does it subvert the meaning of the word Anarchism? Maybe you're just trying to monopolize the use of the word. Everybody knows there are two broad categories of anarchism ..left and right. RJII 00:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a vast body of litterature that refers to anarchism in the sense of the Anarchism article. There's a historically significant movement of people that have referred to themselves as anarchists, not 'left-anarchists'. Renaming the anarchism article to 'left-anarchism' is historical revisionism, it implies that there's always been a left/right divide in anarchism. Even now, with anarcho-capitalism being a notable political theory, the left/right divide is a simplistic way of pointing out the differences. The world does not neatly divide into two categories. If the terms 'left anarchism' and 'right anarchism' are indeed notable, they should be explained in a historical context. 80.203.115.12 13:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, not really, not unless wikipedia's adopting an official policy of ignoring historical evidence and reality.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 01:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This guy knows the difference between "left-anarchism" and "right-anarchism", and he's not an anarcho-capitalist: [15]

Maybe he's been misled by a bogus encyclopedia article. Mattley 16:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork TDC 23:12, Apr 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Life With Jimmy

A geocities page likely created by the author.

Lotsofissues 05:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-promotion, not notable, utter stupidity. WP != Guide to Geocities. jni 06:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 07:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete advert. Not encyclopedia material. Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promo. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No need for self promotion here. Sabine's Sunbird 16:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 14:53, 16 Apr 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 all. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dibbz PC Gaming Cafe, Kevin Best and Mike Wagner

Year old LAN cafe, self-promotion, delete--nixie 05:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as shameless self-promotion. — JIP | Talk 05:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ("what games do we have?") I've also speedy deleted Mike Wagner and Kevin Best. RickK 05:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • And recreated 1 and 2 minutes after your posting. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not notable. jni 05:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all. Not notable. Megan1967 07:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

whats the real reason to delete this? It's not kevin and mike promoting, my name is chase, I'm a member of Dibbz, and I wrote this, no I'm not promoting. I'm writing an entry for a free encyclopedia. It's not self-promotion, I'm just writing about it to inform the gamers of New Orleans (where I do live) that there is more than one LAN center in the city. It's also not a year old yet. And for the specs section, I just copied it from their site, which is why it says "what games do we have?" and if you noticed earlier on i did say "Here's how they list their specs:" You people are messed up, with your copyvio and self-promos, im just writing to inform people, and besides anything that i get from their site, i have permission for it--i know Kevin and Mike personally - Chase 01:03, Apr 11, 2005

• Wikipedia is not just for gamers in New Orleans. To deserve an article in Wikipedia, the Dibbz thingy has to be universally notable, not just in small fan circles. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them, preferably speedily. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio: user Chase states above that it was copied from their site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (if not speedied). Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide. Barno 21:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sorry to vote delete but this looks like advertising to me. I have a site I'd love to advertise to sell my jewellery, but I'm not going to put it on Wikipedia.--Chammy Koala 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it does not say that Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide. this isnt advertising, I've read the deletion policy, what Wikipedia is not, the rules, regulations, guides among other things. It has not violated any of them. Chase 16:18, Apr 11, 2005

• Then you will have read that you can't post material from other sites or written by other people unless it is specifically released to the GFDL license. If you posted this with their approval, then clearly you have their release under that license. Please produce it. If you don't have such a release, then you misspoke when you said that by "knowing" the owners, that's somehow enough permission to post their copyrighted material here. RickK 23:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Non-notable. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technocriticism

Neologism, delete--nixie 06:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and send for cleanup. It has potentially useful and informative content, however needs to be brought down to a less technical level. Needs work. --Randy 11:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not even a kilogoogle, and sounds like it comes from Dilbert's Mission Statement Generator. Delete this theory. Radiant_* 13:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I have to say that the cleanup tag made me chuckle. This article has the prefix "techno-" occurring in every single sentence, sometimes more than once. Upon reading it, the phrase "high-faluting gibberish" came to mind. If there is such a thing as "technocriticism", this article does little to describe it, or even to narrow it down from "everything" to any great degree. I notice that 63.203.72.70 (talk · contribs) has edited both bioconservatism and techno-progressivism. This leads me to believe that, as Radiant! implies, this article is mere buzzword-generation in action. Further: Reading this definition brought to mind the phrase "art-school wankery" that one Australian coined to describe Neurocam. Delete. Uncle G 16:44, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Delete reads like semi-random words strung together. Excerpt: "The technoethical dimension of technocriticism undertakes the public deliberative engagement of multiple contending stakeholders to the problems of technological development" I find it hard to imagine that anyone, anywhere, actually talks or writes like that. This quasi-gibberish is either a lame joke or an even lamer attempt at a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Gosh, I grant the language wasn't the clearest in the world, but is some of this hostility directed at what varieties of critical theory really do care about whether everybody likes it or not, or is it all really about what a terrible writer and fraud I apparently am? I have tried to clean it up a little and would love others to have a go at it who are interested in this stuff.--Dale Carrico
  • You could help by adding some examples, and some references. Kappa 21:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the latest version seem clearer and more useful?--DC
    • Slightly. Kappa 19:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Gazpacho 09:02, 14 Apr 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

Republic Of Henderson Island

Unknown micronation "yet to be declaired" (sic). There is a real article about the island at Henderson Island. Delete unless claims of sovereignty can be confirmed. jni 06:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.For once, I agree with you Jni. Hoax. Sjakkalle 06:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/prank. Megan1967 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if any of it is actually factual include on the Henderson Island page--nixie 08:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The factual parts are already on the Henderson Island page! Bollar 12:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete oer above. Factual info should be included on the existing page. Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Dont Delete. It seems like an article which had not yet been completed. We should give them more time as it looks pretty convincing. As it is a micronation it should be listed as such.
  • By User:202.160.21.15, who has five edits
• Delete per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Radiant_* 11:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as there are no references of any sort to this entity through any searches or any histories of the Pitcairn islands. Bollar 12:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax/ micronation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all micronations. RickK 00:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Given the factual information on teh island is already in its correct article, delete. No merge, no redirect. Chris talk back 04:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no past nor current factual existence. No merge nor redirect needed, for reasons noted by Bollar and Chris. Barno 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep... has been updated. recommend patience. progress has been made. Metrovania
  • But it doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is the only reference to this supposed entity. Are there no publications that discuss this entity? Bollar 13:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. claims citizenship is passed on through word-of mouth and chain mails; this explains no web-site.
• Keep. I can verify the genuine aspirations of this micronation as i have received several e-mails from the "government" which discuss the issues concerned on the page. Fiestaduck
  • User's only contributions are at the disputed page after it was posted for deletion. Mikkalai 17:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 07:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as all 10 google hits for "Republic Of Henderson Island" are related to this VfD. Xezbeth 21:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't exist. THIS IS A HOAX. Henderson Island has zero, zip, nada residents. Nobody lives there. See [16] where it says "Henderson Island is an unihabitated raised reef island" --Durin 04:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hendersonian Defence Force

This related article has been created and should be deleted at the same time. Bollar 13:02, Apr 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 no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Triple Penetration

Porn dicdef. Alai 06:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Group sex, where it already has a mention. —Korath (Talk) 07:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hrm, or to orgy, which is what triple penetration points at. —Korath (Talk) 14:01, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Group sex is better. Kappa 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more than a definition. Incidentally group sex has a different description. Kappa 09:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is it with Wikipedia and group sex? Delete, dicdef, no potential. Chris talk back 17:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It has potential to cover history of use in pornograhy, possible court cases involving it, medical implications, quotes from people who have experienced it. Kappa 17:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Group sex, as Korath said. Jonathunder 04:28, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • So the group sex definition is correct, and not this one? Kappa 08:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge I think both are not correct, but by combining them you might have something that is closer to correct. Any porn stars following this who can clear this up? ;-) Vegaswikian 06:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this entry is more than a definition and has the potential for further development. ElfWord 09:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • More potential than double penetration, which has been hanging around quite happily as a redirect to group sex since 08:26, May 9, 2003? —Korath (Talk) 13:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I bet double penetration would be featured article status by now if it hadn't been redirected. :) Kappa 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to something suitable. (I don't know what, not having any experience with it myself...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Group sex. If the definition in that page is different, then rewrite its entry to mention the fact that there are two possible interpretations for this expression. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:05, 16 Apr 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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sharkmaster

Inside joke. Delete. Allissonn 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Space Pirate Mothership

This article was marked VfD several days ago but not placed on the VfD page until now. Bryan 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: This article is underdeveloped and there is not enough info. There should be a separate page for each ship (assumming there is enough info) and there already is for Zebesian Space Pirates. "Space Pirates" is not the correct name.--Zxcvbnm 00:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into some sort of Metroid locations article Bryan 06:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Indrian is convincing. Bryan 03:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Editors can decide whether to cleanup/develop or merge and redirect with Zebesian Space Pirate. This would not require a VfD discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 08:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, concur with Tony Sidaway. Kappa 09:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) Convinced by Indrian's explanation, delete as nonsense. Radiant_* 09:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. --Bucephalus 13:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --InShaneee 16:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. - SimonP 16:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, as Tony suggested. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a matter of "notability" or "fancruft", but rather just bad information. I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to. There are no ship locations in the original Metroid, so the article's statement to the contrary is just plain wrong. There is a wrecked ship in Super Metroid, but the instruction manual of the game itself explicitly states that this ship is from an ancient exploratory expedition and has nothing to do with the Space Pirates. Metroid Prime has a Zebian ship in it as well, but this is some kind of research ship that is also never identified as a mothership. This article is poorly written, full of unsubstantiated speculation, and should not be kept or merged under any circumstances. If one is going to vote to keep an article on wikipedia, one should at least do enough research to know whether the subject actually exists or not. Indrian 07:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, I agree with Bryan's suggestion.--Matteh (talk) 12:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But the problem with that well-intentioned suggestion is that there is no such Metroid location. Indrian 15:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. Delete, then. DS 23:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if what Indrian says is true. - Stoph 01:10, 15 Apr 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 inconclusive (but someone took the initiative and redirected it). ugen64 02:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrecked Ship

This article was marked VfD several days ago but wasn't placed on the VfD page until now. Bryan 06:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete/Merge: This article is unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs. It could be merged with Super Metroid.--Zxcvbnm 01:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. Bryan 06:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Editor discretion as to merging, redirecting etc. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concur with Tony Sidaway above. Kappa 07:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 08:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, walkthroughs not encyclopedic. Gazpacho 09:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the content of the article with Metroid, but the title should redirect to shipwreck, instead of Metroid. I think people searching for "Wrecked ship" will be very surprised if they are sendt to an article on computer games. Sjakkalle 09:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) Oh yes, and have this redirect to shipwreck. Radiant_* 09:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without merge and redirect to shipwreck. --Bucephalus 13:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without merge, wikipedia is not GameFAQs and, what the heck, wikipedia is not a travel guide. --InShaneee 16:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. - SimonP 16:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into something like Metroid locations.--Matteh (talk) 12:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to shipwreck, no need to merge. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Gdr 20:32, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Redirect to shipwreck. Delete article as unencyclopedic --Frenchman113 20:35, 12 Apr 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. ugen64 02:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polyps (alien)

This article was marked VfD several days ago but not placed on the VfD page until now. Bryan 06:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: There is already a page for the Polyp. What is the difference between that and a or the (I'm not sure) Polyps? Rentastrawberry 03:13, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I say we either Delete this or Transwiki it to some kind of Metroid guide over at Wikibooks. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 04:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This is an (extremely) minor enemy and there is no information about it whatsoever. It is not even mentioned anywhere in the series.--Zxcvbnm 00:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into some sort of master article on Metroid minor species. Bryan 06:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamescruft. Megan1967 08:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Since the Ctulhu mythos has space polyps, this should redirect some place there. Radiant_* 10:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, More gamecruft nonsense --Bucephalus 13:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Bryan's suggestion.--Matteh (talk) 12:21, 12 Apr 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. Bryan 03:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arachnus

This article was marked VfD several days ago but not placed on the VfD page until now. Bryan 06:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: The information in this article is false. There is not much info on the boss Arachnus other than that it looks like a spider, and therefore there should not be an article based on it.--Zxcvbnm 01:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, gamescruft, possible hoax. Megan1967 08:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Cruft. Even if found to be correct, still delete. --Bucephalus 13:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article, as mentioned earlier, is false. the creature's role in the game isn't big enough for its own page. --Zeerus 13:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

.die-hard metroid fan says:well alot of that info is false but it did exist in two of the games and I know the artical is poor but I could fix it up so it has the right basic info with good detail so please let it be and I will edit it personally by changing the entier artical.

• Delete, not notable.--Matteh (talk) 12:26, 12 Apr 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. Bryan 03:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three Regis

This article was marked VfD some time ago but wasn't placed on the VfD page until now. Bryan 06:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this page is a stub but there is no content that can be added to it and it is useless since there are individual pages for each and they AREN'T even refered to as "Three Regis"
• Delete, pokecruft. Megan1967 08:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously fancruft --Bucephalus 13:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Srcastic 05:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Needless for pokèmon --Greyhead 19:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, erase, obliterate pokecruft. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kantar

Delete as non-notable. I initially flagged as a vanity page, but poster claims Kantar is a local folk hero... ergo, we're on VfD.Feco 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear notable outside his home city. — JIP | Talk 07:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Should have been speedied, not as vanity but nonsense. "Kantar once tied together 30,000 live snakes to create a rope bridge across the Grand Canyon; he then drove across in his M3 convertible" ... come on, now. Just in case there are any doubts, a Google search for "kantar +Boston" brought no relevant results in the first five pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

article was initially speedied, but creator protested. Path of least resistance seemed to be VfD. Feco

KEEP, NO DELETE. Kantar is a folk hero of Boston, it's legit.

The above by anon 151.203.14.34 VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for being idiocy. Okay, "hoax", big difference. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, possible vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

StephTheGeek

Tagged for speedy deletion as "Vanity, wiki spam.", but it makes some claims to notability, so I brought it here. No vote. Kappa 07:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• StephtheGeek's website has an Alexa ranking of 316, 981. Page is either deilberate vanity or promotion of the site by a fan, delete--nixie 08:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Shameless promotion delete--AntiMatterVortex 08:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Edit I firmly agree w/ ANTIMATTERVORTEX, and she has a following which is important. kb6110
  • Keep and EDIT After reading the comments below I'm changing my vote. However this article needs to become less promotional and more informational immediately. Mentioning the web site one time at the bottom of the page should suffice. --AntiMatterVortex 03:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm very pleased to see the way this article has developed since it was posted here. I would sincerely like to see this article continue to expand and I hope that everyone that hasn't re-evaluated it would go and take a look. --AntiMatterVortex 08:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. jni 10:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Article was written by a fan (me), not by Steph herself. You have pages for other internet personalities, such as Drew Curtis, why wouldn't this be allowed too?
  • This vote is the only edit by User:63.240.225.182
• Instead of deleting, why not move it into the appropriate category of Internet Personalities? Spazholio
• An article doesn't have to be self-written to be considered vanity, and we have pages and categories for notable internet personalities, but not just everyone (otherwise, any Wikipedian could be considered an internet personality). Sorry but this does get my delete vote. Radiant_* 13:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I do see your point, and to a certain extent, agree with it. However, how many Wikipedians have 40,000 unique page views per month and have released their own album. I understand you have to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and not every bonehead with a website can be included, but for someone who has that many pageviews and actually recorded her own CD, one would think that would take her out of the realm of "some person with a page" to "internet personality", no? Spazholio
  • Not really. Pageviews alone are a weak indicator of notability, and besides that 40K a month isn't really that high. My website had 50,484 hits last month according to WebTrends, and I certainly don't consider myself either an internet personality or worthy of an article. Having recorded a CD is nice, but as far as I can tell it seems to be self-released. Anyone with a CDR drive, some freeware, and a $3 PC microphone could technically record their own CD in a couple of hours if they really wanted to. Radiant said it best, there has to be some sort of notability before an article on an "internet personality" can be seriously considered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "actually recorded [her/his/their] own [CD, LP, album, EP, single]" has been non-notable for about 20 years now. Trust me on this.  ;-) Soundguy99 16:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, not notable. Subject's website has a current Alexa rank of 316,981 which is pretty low for someone whose claim to notability is internet-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for all the good reasons listed above. CDC (talk) 16:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, non-notable page. --InShaneee 16:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sticking with my speedy delete vote as complete and total spam. The sockpuppets aren't helping. - Lucky 6.9 17:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I guess I am the only one here that has actually been to StephTheGeek's website. [17] shows 33,200 pages mentioning the one and only StephTheGeek. This isn't vanity. She isn't as big of a web-celebrity as Wonkette or Drew Curtis, but she does have a following, probably larger than Sollog's. MicahMN | Talk 17:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I only get 4,790 hits from that google search (clicking that same link). Kappa 19:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Then you're doing something wrong. I get 33,000 hits as well.
      • Hmm safe search is off, not sure what else it could be. Kappa 20:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep She is just as important as many of the other so called "stars" on the Web. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, so those other so-called "stars" should also be deleted. Only the real Stars should stay. Radiant_* 09:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the low alexa rank makes me think that she is not as important as many of the other so called "stars" on the Web. Dave the Red (talk) 19:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. --Chiacomo 20:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I get about 20,000 searching for StephTheGeek OR "Steph The Geek". -- 8^D ^gab 21:18, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Good enough for me. Changing vote to keep. - Lucky 6.9 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I get 311 hits at the link MicahMN referenced. Note that the 33,200 count is for every reference on every page in the Google search. There are only 311 unique hits. RickK 00:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • RickK is correct. Google results link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - since I hadn't explicitly stated it earlier Spazholio 14:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just saw this in my stats. I didn't submit it myself, and the text of the entry is taken from my bio -- maybe it could be edited a bit to be less self-promo-sounding. While I'd like to stay here, this obviously isn't my encyclopedia; it's yours. So I'll leave you to your voting after I make a few comments. I'd like to correct that the 40k reference above is unique monthly visitors, not page views, which is roughly half a million. I was actually down in Cleveland this weekend, giving a presentation on my site at the NotACon conference. I've been living my life online for nearly five years, and have been on TechTV and in many other publications, and I am to be in an upcoming documentary (look for horrible, horrible photo in this month's American Cinematographer) and book on the webcam phenomenon. Yes, my album is self-released, but believe me, not with a CD burner! I've actually even been recognized on the street a good few times. So anyway... I'll leave you to your voting. I enjoy a healthy debate  :) Stephthegeek 14:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • this obviously isn't my encyclopedia; it's yours I respectuflly disagree. It is OUR encyclopedia, not simply the private property of a few cabals. I agree the page needs to sound a bit less self-serving. I attempted some updates to correct this, but the article does need work. An article needing work should not instantly qualify as a deletion candidate in my book, though. --Froggy 17:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep' this as well please Yuckfoo 16:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP and expand. Entry itself needs work, but should not be summarily deleted. Notability is documented. My suspicion is that more will be heard of her in the coming months and years. --Froggy 16:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep and expand; I think presence in documentaries, books, and American Cinematographer lift this above a vanity entry. Masked Angel 17:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep although she may have started this herself (emphasis on MAY) she is notable and has been for a while.  ALKIVAR™ 18:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. If being featured in an upcoming documentary film, TechTV, CosmoGirl, and a number of other television shows and trade magazines doesn't clear the bar of notability, we've got a lot more de1337ing to do.  ;) —RaD Man (talk) 01:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has grown nicely since being listed here. Steph, your notability is not only well-documented, it's now well-written. Please consider establishing an account and being a regular contributor. Given the condition of the original article and the number of similar ones that flood this site every day, it's all too easy to overlook a diamond in the rough. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete Vanity Ejrrjs | What? 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; sufficient notability is now shown. Samaritan 12:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 16:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- article shows notability. Multiple credits in multiple publications. Far more deserving of an article than much of what's in Wikipedia and regularly voted Keep on. DreamGuy 05:10, Apr 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 merge and redirect. ugen64 02:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne University ALP Club and Melbourne University Labor Club

University clubs are not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, enough information and significance, needs some expantion but very new User:almightyjosh 11 April
  • Vote by User:Almightyjosh, who has a dozen edits and is the author of the article.
• Delete as vanity, university clubs are NN. Radiant_* 13:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • In terms of this, has anyone actually noticed how many university clubs there are on wiki? Just search, there's thousands! Most entries are much smaller than this one User Almightjosh 13 April
• Delete. University clubs are not notable. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Major clubs at major universities are verifiable, and therefore are encyclopedic. "Non-notability" is not a valid deletion criterion according to existing Wikipedia policies and conventions. Keep. --Gene_poole 23:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: non-notability is a de facto criterion by convention. Radiant_* 09:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to University of Melbourne. The precedent of all of the Dartmouth College inundation is to put clubs on the school's page. RickK 00:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant ALP club around for 80 years at significant university. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to University of Melbourne. I'm secretary of the University of Queensland Labor club, and I haven't made an article. I can attest that most of the content is factually inaccurate and doesn't deserve to be merged. Slac speak up! 02:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's probably also worth pointing out that all universities in Australia have a ALP club, I would support merging this and information about some of the other prominent clubs to an Australian Labor Party and student activism (or some variant) article. --nixie 04:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there an ALP equivalent to the Australian Liberal Students Federation which all Liberal clubs and societies throughout Australia? If so, it might be worthwhile creating an article on that and having a redirect to that if it is considered that this article is not worthy of retention in its own right. I will take the informed advice of Slac about the reliability of the information. Capitalistroadster 03:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Labor students of the Left and Right have their own separate student bodies, the National Organisation of Labor Students and Student Unity respectively (neither are officially party-affiliated). Thus the reference to separate left and right clubs in the article. It is possible, I think, to create an article along the lines that Peta has suggested. Slac speak up! 11:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's very little there that couldn't be said of most Labor Right campus groups in the country (an article on the one at my uni would be basically the same). An article on the student union there (which that club dominates) would be quite useful, though, considering all the recent drama and criminal charges. Ambi 04:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to University of Melbourne. I don't believe this club deserves an individual article, but a mention at the university page would be OK. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Melbourne University ALP Club is one of the main actors in Victorian student political activism (in particular with NUS, and has an 80 year club history, although there are factual errors in the article. I agree with nixie; there should be a larger entry on ALP Clubs from around Australia. Theusualsuspect
• Delete both. University clubs are almost always non-notable. Is any of this verifiable in any case? Gamaliel 06:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The ALSF and its President, as well as other student factions have their own entries. Furthermore, there are archives of MUALP Club records at the University's library.Theusualsuspect 11:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The various factions are made up of literally dozens of such clubs. As for Julian, he's a nice enough guy but I don't think he's going to stay current long enough for there to be a reasonable article about him (I could write articles on quite a few past & present NUS OB's, but frankly I don't see the point, especially once they've left office). And Xtra, yes the club's been controversial, but so have many others. The actual information within the article really isn't all that informative (the controversial activities have taken place outside of the club's framework anyway - it's as if I were to launch into a discussion of the morality of the Iraq war on the Skull and Bones Society article on the basis that George Bush is a member). Slac speak up! 11:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The ALP club has had enough controversy to warrant a page. Xtra 11:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Abstain. I see Lacrimosus's point. Xtra 11:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tiberius Caesar (son of Germanicus)

Should really be a speedy, given that the entire text is "Caesar Tiberius" plus a stub template. But surely an article is possible here? If not, then a delete is the only option. Grutness|^hello? 08:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe turn it into a redirect? Chyel 08:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless some actual context is put there. Better as a redlink. Kappa 09:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. From the Julio-Claudian family tree, it does not appear that Germanicus had a son named Tiberius. I suspect the author was think of plain ol' Tiberius. -- 8^D ^gab 15:06, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Delete Articles like this give a bad impression. Must be a valid Case 1 speedy, though? Chris talk back 17:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, factually incorrect. Megan1967 10:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but not factually incorrect. Germanicus had two sons who died young, Tiberius and Gaius Julius. VfD usually deletes or redirects articles about children who died very young, however notable their parents. In this case a redirect is unneeded because no-one will look for this article. The article was probably written by someone filling in a redlink on a page like Drusus Caesar (before I removed the link). Gdr 20:17, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Weak delete for reasons listed by Gdr. I would support a redirect without the parenthesized part, since noone is likely to search for that whole string. I was going to say "Cæsar" (woo hoo, a chance to use the ligature feature!) is wrong since he was never emperor, but I am reminded that Cæsar was Germanicus' family name and only took the "emperor" meaning after Gaius Julius C. made it so. Barno 00:12, 13 Apr 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 22:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorin Mardare

Vanity. No google hits for Romania. There are about 26 references about "Sorin Mardare" outside wikipedia, but all of them are about a math lecturer in France. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 08:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN, Vanity. --Randy 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:06, 12 Apr 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. – ABCD 22:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Qcb

Delete. Self promotion/advertising. --Randolph 08:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Sjakkalle 09:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert, first person text. jni 10:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. --Randy 11:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• For the love of anything holy, delete. Chris talk back 17:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A blatant ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant ad and link spam. - Lucky 6.9 23:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 04:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 10:07, 12 Apr 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. – ABCD 22:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Halover

At any rate, this article is a dictionary definition, so a transwiki at least. However, I am unable to find these definitions of "Halover" anywhere else and suspect that we may be talking about neologisms. I will vote delete unless the definitions are confirmed. Sjakkalle 09:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, concur, appears to be a protologism. Kappa 10:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamingcruftlogism. Not in common use. jni 10:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not in common use. Do not transwiki --Bucephalus 12:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 10:09, 12 Apr 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. – ABCD 22:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AsteroidSyndicate

Clan of gamers. Vanity, cruft, unencyclopedic, not notable, stupid, whatever. sjorford →•← 09:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. All of those --Henrygb 10:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All of those, self-promotion, using WP as a free hosting service. jni 10:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 10:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with all of the above --Bucephalus 12:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with "unencyclopedic" at least. Sjakkalle 13:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gaming clan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what they said. Don't forget to delete the images uploaded to illustrate this "article" as well. -- Infrogmation 18:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same user has just posted a nonsense nanostub called In Da Butt. I don't speek Leet, but it seems to have something to do with this group of his. - Lucky 6.9 00:36, 13 Apr 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. – ABCD 22:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kurt Vögeln

This is a hoax, apparently a joke on Karl-Heinz Grasser. Delete, although I had a good laugh when I discovered this page. Martg76 09:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since noone is voting, these are the reasons why this is a hoax:

• Never heard of the guy.
• No google hits.
• No entries for anyone named Vögeln in the Austrian online phone book.
• The text is an abbreviated version of Karl-Heinz Grasser.
• Although supposedly an alumnus of the University of Klagenfurt, there is no diplomary thesis under his name in the library catalogue of Austrian universities.
• But most of all, when you read the name aloud, it sounds suspicially similar to what could be understood as "good shag" in the Austro-Bavarian variety of German. This is particularly interesting as the article was created this March, when there were some reports in the press indicating that Grasser had not been entirely faithful to his fiancée. Martg76 18:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either a hoax or completely nonnotable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Martg76's rather convincing summary. Alarm 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, per Martg76's comments, unless some really verifiable evidence is presented. Barno 00:16, 13 Apr 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. – ABCD 22:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marius Waland

Apparently vanity, no google hits. andy 11:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, non-notable, no content. --InShaneee 16:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dantari

Star wars trivia, too fine-grained. If anybody care they can transwiki to the star wars wikicity. Thue | talk 12:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd say to merge it per WP:FICT, but there isn't enough here to bother; it's currently speedyable as a very short article with no context. —Korath (Talk) 12:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to List of Star Wars races. Shimmin 13:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Star Wars races since the WP:FICT says to avoid deletion of fctional characters and races. Way too short for a separate article however. Sjakkalle 13:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Belongs in a list in some other article, not as its own. 11 Apr 2005.
• Merge, as stated above. 2,240 Google results, but a few are false. Of course, there's really not a lot here to merge.-LtNOWIS 03:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Star Wars races. Megan1967 10:12, 12 Apr 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. – ABCD 22:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nassim Sahar

Non-notable, probable vanity. No Google hits. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 12:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, not notable. "cuyo's headquarters" doesn't Google either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, "cuyo's headquarters" and nassim sahar both have a young web presence, but are notable in Lausanne, Switzerland — Mexicatl | Talk 15:58, 11.4.5
  • Note User's only 2 edits have been to this and the article in question. Watch out for socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification True regarding first point, newly registered Wikipedia user, but longtime user, but basis for vote still valid. --mexicatl 15:47, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. --InShaneee 16:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 10:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dan kenerson

Unverifiable and probably vanity or nonsense. Google search for "dan kenerson" returns 5 hits, none of them related to the content of this article. bbx 12:40, 11 Apr 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Gog

Appears to be an attempt to promote a play. Google has 20 hits for "Alexander Gog -wikipedia. The Orange County Weekly describes Alexander Gog as "fictional"[18]. Thoroughly non-notable. Delete. --194.73.130.132 13:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as nonsense. "Misery Engine Project, which converted Gog's misery and pain into combustible energy" WTF? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nonsense Dsmdgold 21:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gogcruft. I refuse to acknowledge the mildly clever puns. -- 8^D ^gab 03:57, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • You hear that, you vanity-joke-whatever poster! Your puns are only mildly clever!!! No BJAODN for you!!! You go to bed without supper!!! -- 8^D ^gab 03:59, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    • I must say, more amusing than the hoax itself is that fact that someone actually wikified it, and someone else put an accuracy tag on it. -- 8^D ^gab 04:03, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 10:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catch Without Arms

An album which is going to be released. Delete. Sjakkalle 14:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete may be speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a place for reviews. --InShaneee 16:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dsmdgold 21:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And there is the possibility its contents might change before it is released. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 10:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:20, 16 Apr 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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel Revealed (tourism)

No potential to become encyclopedic - all relevant information is on page Daniel Rona. If it was to be more fully edited - it would be advertising. Trödel|talk 15:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable and unencyclopedic. --Randy 21:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Daniel Rona. - Gilgamesh 10:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Done Trödel|talk 22:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advert/promo. Megan1967 10:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brackins

Orphaned page about an apparently non-notable Aikido practioner/teacher who googles to 13 hits, untouched since last Christmas. According to the article, Brackings is "credited with establishing Bushin Aikido" - which also googles to some 12 hits. Delete as vanity, non-notable. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bye, Dan. Phils 16:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:19, 12 Apr 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 to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Secondary School

Non-notable, rambling, childlike. SecondarySchoolCruft. --InShaneee 02:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) (whoops, looks like I forgot to list this yesterday.)

• Looks like a hoax to me ("A student got hit by a car while crossing the road" - like that doesn't happen everywhere ...). Delete. Excuse me while I de-shit the article first. Chris talk back 17:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, state-registered secondary schools are all adequately notable, other things can be cleaned up. Kappa 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet again, you miss the point of VfD entirely ... Chris talk back 17:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you could clarify the "point of VfD"? Kappa 18:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • To keep or delete articles based on their content, not their subject. Chris talk back 01:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Well the nomination says "non-notable" and most of the votes cite notability. I feel that {{cleanup}} tags are more suitable than Vfd for good subjects with poor articles. Kappa 17:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • That in itself does not make valid reasoning. Chris talk back 22:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Inshaneee. Radiant_* 18:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to improve. High schools should not have to prove their notability. --BaronLarf 18:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not? Every other entry has to do so, what makes schools a special case? Chris talk back 18:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I believe that, just as incorporated places, universities and Category:British railway stations seem to have generally agreed upon notability, so too should high schools and secondary schools. "If someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." —Jimmy Wales (Full context of quote) --BaronLarf 20:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that context. I notice that Jimbo talks about a "good article" from a "good contributor", which lends support to the idea that a certain standard could be required from school articles. Kappa 20:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I would agree that school articles should be improved as much as possible, just as any article should. But he makes no mention of "notability," only verifiability. Granted, lots of these schools start out as horrendous articles by anonymous users who just want to brag about their school. But through edits by "good contributors" such as ourselves, I believe we can turn them into "good articles."--BaronLarf 21:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • Then be bold and do so. The words "money" and "mouth" come to mind. Christalk back 04:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Check the page history. I have been. Cordially yours, BaronLarf 13:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
              • A table and some categories do not make a stub on some non-notable subject into an article worthy of an encyclopedia. If we started seeing more substantial contributions from the people who think that any one room school is worth an article, we might start changing our votes. Gamaliel 16:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • I am doing my best to add everything verifiable that I can about this school. I apologize that it does not meet your personal standard for what a high school article should be. I agree with you that those who vote "Keep" should do something to make the article better, and I am trying to do this. Cheers. --BaronLarf 19:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Might I ask where you feel telling someone to be bold is uncivil? Chris talk back 22:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable school. Dave the Red (talk) 18:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 19:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What notability policies? Kappa 20:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Just the usual. Chris talk back 22:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per the usual. - SimonP 21:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of substantial notability. Firebug 21:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination reasons do not comply with current deletion policy. --Gene_poole 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for tender love and organic growth. This school article is even nicely formated. All school's are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 00:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax. No notability established. Slac speak up! 00:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zscout370 00:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this too please Yuckfoo 01:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 01:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel/S Gamaliel 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all secondary schools. Its not a hoax. Paradiso 03:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to apparently distinguish it from the other 136 schools in the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. School vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 04:55, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. Schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr/_comhrá 05:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 06:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would be more than happy to change my vote if someone actually went to the effort of explaining in the article what makes this school stand out. Indrian 07:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Make a mention in Mississauga, Ontario and delete - Skysmith 07:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 10:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see where you're coming from with the notability (though I don't agree), but how is it a hoax?--BaronLarf 13:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 13:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schools aren't inherently notable --Bucephalus 16:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl ^(talk) 18:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic, judging from the page's history, despite BaronLarf's heroic efforts. —Korath (Talk) 21:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, despite BaronLarf's improvements, due to lack of evidence of anything to distinguish this school from all others. I strongly disagree with both Angr and RaD Man in their opposing viewpoints: Schools are neither inherently significant enough for WP inclusion, nor inherently insignificant enough to auto-delete. Editors using templates to keep all schools or delete all schools are far less persuasive than those who research the individual school and discuss it on its merits. Barno 00:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My point of contention is that we're able to include any commercial music album, not to mention every Pokemon character under the son, for the sake of completion. Be it by way of Dr Zen's template or not, the message doesn't change. If you don't believe all schools are notable, the issue of me using a template isn't going to change your mind either way. Count on me to vote keep on each and every verifiably accurate school article every time there is an opportunity to do so. —RaD Man (talk) 01:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Of course we can have those things over schools for completion, because, unlike schools, we can actually have a complete set. Pokemon are finite. Even since they've introduced more than the 150, the number is hardly large enough to cause a problem. Albums are also finite, the criteria the artists have to meet take care of that - we can never have too many, because the bulk don't meet the inclusion criteria. What you idiots don't seem to realise is that, unlike Pokemon, major albums, major computer games, major characters from RPGs, railway stations, etc. without defining a much stricter set of criteria than "if it's real, it can stay in", schools are not finite. Wikipedia is not infinite (as those of you who have actually read WP:WINP and WP:WIN properly will know), thus we need to restrict the articles we have. We can include things "for the sake of completion", because we know we have something we can complete. We can never hope to document every school in the world ever - it's physically and logically impossible, as well as making Wikipedia unmaintainable and a print edition unfeasible. Oh, and did I mention that your attitude is inherently harmful to Wikipedia? Chris talk back 00:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    "What you idiots don't seem to realise"— excuse me? —RaD Man (talk) 00:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    What, no logical counter-argument? Of course not. You can't come up with one because there isn't one, so instead you feel the need to attack my comments. Chris talk back 03:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    This is the second time that I've linked to Wikipedia:Civility in reply to one of your comments on this page. I don't think that it's out of line to adhere to it. On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland) you've told people to "shut the hell up." Now you are referring to fellow wikipedians as idiots. Could we please tone the vitriol down a bit? The number of high schools is indeed finite, though large (21,500). At the rate that Wikipedia is growing, the percentage of articles devoted to high school articles in the end will never be over 1%, I believe. People have to create the articles first. --BaronLarf 04:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

    • I'd be all for revisiting the album/Pokemon/game issue. More and more it seems to me that it's time to create a WikiPopCulture project and move all the pop culture stuff over to it. Mwanner 12:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As per all schools, I vote to keep.. ANd this one is written better than most! --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I forgot, whether I already voted on this one or not. These school articles are absolutely identical. Some day just to prove a point I'll create 100+ stubs on schools in my home city... Delete Grue 19:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously improved since nomination. Samaritan 21:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article looks okay now. GrantNeufeld 22:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another catholic school. If there was something noteworthy about the school, that someone who didn't go there would find interesting to know in the article, I might change my vote. --Webgeer 22:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another Catholic school, despite the cosmetic surgery to the article. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ask yourself "Who, other than someone who attends the school, would go looking for it on WP?" If the answer is "no one", then it basically amounts to a group vanity page. Since that isn't going to happen any time soon, I like Skysmith's suggestion-- add schools to their home town's articles, which tent to run stubby anyway. Mwanner 11:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable secondary school. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this school article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _HELO 19:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not if supported by established Wikipolicy (see, for instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines). If we do not have such a policy for schools, votes will necessarily have to be cast on personal evaluations of notability. Arguing that "All schools are notable" is also a personal evaluation of notability. The fact that "notability is subjective" invalidates neither a "Delete" nor a "Keep" vote. VladMV ٭ ^talk 19:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep  The Steve  21:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even a non-notable school with a nice article should be kept on wikipedia. It should only be deleted when a stub fails to be expanded. Looks nice enough to me, just needs more expansion in this case.Mark Shew 22:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit to wikipedia. Indrian 03:32, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yawn. The JPS 10:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 06:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wokhunt

A nonsensical nasty neologism. CDC (talk) 16:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Beyond the trivial. Delet'unt Chris talk back 17:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Speedy delete candidate. --Randolph 17:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, trash. Firebug 21:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, trivial neologism. Megan1967 10:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is that the Campbelltown? Mwanner 11:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lstaste

Band vanity. Zero google hits as far as I can tell. Xezbeth 17:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence that it passes the Notability and Music Guidelines. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 10:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Everyking 02:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bunz

This article seems to be slang for a small group of people. It is possible that the poster is trying to use Wikipedia to make this slang term mainstream. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not, then delete the article. MicahMN | Talk 17:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons above. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete describing slang with no reference to where in the world this word is spoken. --Randolph 19:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. Dsmdgold 21:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bun to prevent article recreation. Megan1967 10:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if redirecting it to Bun would help since "Bunz" isn't a reference to a food item. MicahMN | Talk 00:49, 13 Apr 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, pending (block-compress error). Consensus to delete; proponents promised to clean it up but no one has touched it since 11 April. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Portlands Energy Centre

Despite a number of attempts to get this page changed from a campaigning anti-power plant page to a NPOV description of the project, the principal editor continues to use this to promote a POV opposed to the planned development. He describes himself as a "member of the resistance". This would be OK as a Personal Page but not as a Wikipedia article.

• Delete : Dabbler 15:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Do you read the whole entry?? I have invited other POV's to contribute to the page. I am declaring my bias for a reason. It's a work in progress. Go find some spelling mistakes somewhere and give us a chance please.

There is a signifigant number of points raised in the chronology that are neutral, and more will be added in the next couple of days, I suspect, when the proponent of the project gets to edit the page.

Yes, I have read everything and one of the purposes of a Vote for deletion is to draw attention of other people to a page with serious problems. If the page is improved during the next week then the vote will be to keep and I will be happy about that. In its current state (and previous ones produced by you) it has been a totally non-POV Campaign page and not encyclopedic. Dabbler 21:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite to conform to NPOV; this power plant is clearly a noteworthy project, as the fact that it has attracted significant public opposition indicates. Firebug 21:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup/NPOV. --SPUI (talk) 21:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. (This is not a vote.) It might be noteworthy. If someone writes an encyclopedia article rather than a POV screed it could be kept. Otherwise we're better off deleting this and starting from scratch. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Update. The article has not improved during its time on VfD. I live in Toronto and haven't heard of the controversy, but that could be because I'm spending too much time on Wikipedia. Since nobody seems willing to write something neutral about this topic or establish why an as-yet-unbuilt natural gas power plant is notable, the article should be deleted. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It has been a number of days since I put this up fro deletion and there has been no serious effort to improve and NPOV the page yet. Dabbler 16:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this idiotic POV mess. If it were a nuclear power plant then perhaps one could make a decent argument for keeping the article despite its POV state (think of Chernobyl). But natural gas plants are everywhere. --Coolcaesar 19:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• THe proponets have agreed to edit this page this week. PLEASE do not edit.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. RickK 00:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Elitesecurity

This has been deleted before (see below); still can't see what's notable about this (non-English language) forum Ianb 18:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Ad for yet another internet forum, in Serbian (?) only. Ianb 16:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• The site is the number one hit from Google, but Alexa traffic is 23,839. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andris 09:57, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
• (no vote) The largest and most well-known Serbian IT forum. What are criteria for inclusion of sites? Is being the most significant site about a topic in a language or region not important enough? Nikola 15:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no place in Wikipedia for general web-directory style entries. Any site that is included should have an article about the site, its history, what makes it notable etc.. This article does not, which is why it is listed here, and as this is an English-language site, the vast majority of contributors (including myself) can only judge on the information available. It is of course possible that relevant information is added during the vfd period which can have a positive effect on the outcome. Ianb 16:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The above has disappeared from the vfd page but the article Elitesecurity remains with vfd tag and is protected. Not sure what's happened here. --Ianb 08:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• No vote: Unjustified protection removed from page. Davodd 16:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry, this is a result of my foul up. When I went to delete this page I accidentally hit the protect tab, but still filled in the comment as though I was deleting it, and then removed the page from VfD. I have now deleted the page, as it should have been long ago. - SimonP 16:30, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • You get the Wonderfully Human award for the day. :-) Davodd 17:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Seconded :-). Thanks. --Ianb 17:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. RickK 00:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. Radio KoL merged with Kingdom of Loathing and this into that. Jinian 13:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inari-chan

Radio KoL DJ. Station not notable, DJ not notable, show not notable. Vanity-by-proxy. No potential. Pretty much everything in the deletion policy apart from "Not a real Pokemon". Chris talk back 18:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think the station itself is probably notable, I suggest a merge with that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, stationcruft. Megan1967 10:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Radio KoL, with same reasoning as in my votes on other RKoL hosts in the last few days. RKoL is pioneering enough to be on the edge of general notability, but its DJs and writers reach at most a few thousand people (probably less in most cases) and don't meet WP notability guidelines for more than listing in a section of the parent article. Barno 00:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, agree with above. Grue 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This is just way too short and is really a vanity article. Maybe make a DJ section in the Radio KoL article. --Phoenix Hacker 23:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesnt appear to be needed, and nor does it require a merger to the Radio KoL page. Isnt even a current DJ. DaCyclops 14:33, 17 Apr 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. — mark ✎ 12:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiplife

• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic --Randolph 18:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wait and see - who are we to say that this is not a notable topic capable of development? It may be significant in Ghana, which is the claim of the stub, so let someone who knows about Ghana say something about it first. -- 8^D ^gab 19:00, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Neutral. Agree with the above poster that I'd like to know how significant this is in Ghana before voting to delete. Firebug 21:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "South Africa's Channel O has recently added an entire hip-life show to its programming" [19] Please check "What links here" and google a little before Vfding things, this was a requested article. Kappa 23:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established, promo. Megan1967 10:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Major Ghanaian music style. Notability is easily established by searching "Reggie Rockstone". - Mustafaa 06:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable Ghanaian music style. Certainly has the potential to become encyclopedic. Often spelled 'Hip Life', other major artist Tic Tac. The BBC has devoted an article to it a year ago at their African music scene pages [20]. — mark ✎ 07:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmmmm..seems I should have looked into this a bit further before proposing vote for deletion. My apologies. :) --Randolph 01:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberty Belle

Delete. This article about an alias of Blossom of the Powerpuff Girls isn't notable enough to have its own separate article. Marcus2 18:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep per WP:FICT. Kappa 18:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to The Powerpuff Girls. Dave the Red (talk) 18:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Dave the Red (talk) 02:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... on the one hand, Liberty Belle gets almost 40,000 Google hits, but for all different kinds of uses unrelated to the PP Girls. Let it die, and if there's another notable use, that can go in later. -- 8^D ^gab 18:57, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  • Keep the DC Comics character article - the individual character is notable enough that it deserve not to be merged into some other page. -- 8^D ^gab 22:06, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Merge content to The Powerpuff Girls and then Redirect to Liberty Bell as a possible mispelling. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article's makeover into one about the DC Comics character. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Merge/redirect. I remember this episode. This "character" appeared only once. - Lucky 6.9 22:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect as per WP:FICT. Slac speak up! 00:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep rewrite. Good job, DS. Slac speak up! 21:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, minor character, cruft. Megan1967 10:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not because of the Powerpuff Girls, but because Libby "Liberty Belle" Chambers is a genuine DC Comics character who's been around for several years - was part of the All-Star Squadron, married one superhero, gave birth to another. Article needs to be heavily rewritten, though, to reflect that fact (and I'll probably get to that this evening) - at most, the PPG thing should be mentioned at the bottom.DS 15:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep terrific new article on an actual DC superheroine. Barnstars for DS! - Lucky 6.9 22:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep DS's revised article. DC character is noteworthy, the Powerpuff Girls reference was not. Barno 00:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised article. Welldone DS. Capitalistroadster 04:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep She's a well-remembered character who's been around since the mid-Forties. Chyel 04:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is such a comic book character named Liberty Belle who is well-known. Marcus2 14:15, 13 Apr 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?) 21:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Axel Coon

Delete. Vanity, no potential to be encyclopedic. --Randolph 18:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 18:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Slac speak up! 00:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete VAnity Dsmdgold 19:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Vanity, spam, promotional Dr Ingel 01:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

100 Greatest Cartoons

Delete. Most probably fictitious. This is just like how misinformation can spread like about the singer Engelbert Humperdinck and the fictitious composer Viraldini. Marcus2 19:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Fictitious? It has an external link on the page, read it. Xezbeth 19:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know that something must have been made up. It can't be possible for all 100 of the cartoons, clips from the show, and celebrities to be all on a 245-minute program. Marcus2 19:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As someone who watched the whole thing, I can confirm that it isn't made up. Channel 4 have done loads of these programs, and they always manage to fit everything in. This particular one had way too many comedians commenting on programs they clearly knew nothing about. Xezbeth 19:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• keep per Xezbeth. Kappa 20:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the title is inherently POV. Firebug 21:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So we can't have articles on TV shows with POV titles? Kappa 21:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, there goes Everybody Loves Raymond, for one. android↔talk 22:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the title has the potential to be misleading. Maybe if it was moved to 100 Greatest Cartoons (Channel 4 poll) it would be acceptable. Firebug 22:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Except it's not just a poll; it's the name of the documentary. Besides, Channel 4 is too regional – around here, that's the CBS affiliate. Adding something like (documentary) only makes sense, IMO, when it would need to be disambiguated. android↔talk 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh noes, we must delete Best Week Ever because it may have just been a middling week. Mike H 03:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article about real TV special. This is simply too big to merge into, say, Cartoon, and I'm not sure it would fit well there or anywhere else, for that matter. android↔talk 22:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The insinuation that this is "fictitious" is ludicrous. It even has an IMDB entry! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This list is the intellectual property of the people who conducted the poll, and is therefore a copyright violation. We have deleted previous such compilations in the past as copyright violations. The discussion should be moved to the Copyright problems page, to which I shall be linking the article. RickK 00:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's more to the article than just the list (though without the list, I should think it better merged somewhere); why did you excise more than the list? android↔talk 00:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • A list of names of cartoons is not a copyright violation. You have to be joking. If a book published a newly-compiled list of names of victims from a disaster, you'd actually claim that the list of peoples' names is copyrighted??? --brian0918&#153; 03:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A list of anything which has been voted on as "the best" or "the greatest" or "the whatever" by the readers or watchers or editors or whatever of a particular entity is their intellectual property and is therefore copyrighted. A simple List of cartoons would not be copyrighted, so long as there was no link to Channel 4. RickK 19:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's say a telephone company compiles a list of its subscribers, and provides the subscribers with a phone book with all their names listed in it. Would you consider that list copyrighted? The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't. Facts can't be copyrighted. It is a fact that The Simpsons came in at #1 on their list, and that Aladdin came in at #17, just as it is a fact that Joe Schmoe was a subscriber to Rural Phone Company and that his phone number was X. --brian0918&#153; 00:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also, a list of names of cartoons is not a copyright violation. --brian0918&#153; 03:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I seriously question whether or not a list is copyright. Burgundavia 03:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because it's coverage of a documentary. Whether the list itself is a copyvio, I don't know. In the U.S., bodies of facts when compiled a certain way are in fact defensible (for example, CDDB). In any case, the article should stay, with or without the list. Demi ^T/_C 03:46, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• NO VOTE because I'm undecided, no wait, that's not it, because this is obviously a highly watched television special about a popular subject matter which offers a trove of interesting and informative information about the history and popularity of cartoons. Perhaps 'No vote' because this is, without a doubt, the most inane example of an attempt to trim any wikipedia content that wouldn't make it into a print version. GIVE UP ALREADY. Read my post on the village pump for a less ranting and more academic look at the problem. Regards and clue-by-four swatting in all necessary directions - especially for red-herring planters, nsh 03:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, may I refer to 100 Greatest Britons? I think an article on this is as just as valid, and I don't think the list can be copyrighted. Sjakkalle 07:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I looked at Demi's comment, and perhaps I was a little hasty in declaring that a list cannot be copyrighted, it will need to be investigated. But still keep. 07:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at point 2 on C4's "Terms and Conditions" page. [21]. What do you read into it? Can a ranking be coyrighted, or are the presence of all those wikilinks on our list enough to avoid running afoul of copyrights? Sjakkalle 07:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think it a list like this could be copyrighted as an "original selection and arrangement" of facts, especially if there were a lot of them, like weekly Billboard charts. But in this case, I think it's fair use, as the list is a small part of the program, and anyone seeing this list is going to be more likely to want to watch it. Channel 4 puts the results on their website [22], so internet surfers aren't going to be watching the program just to find out the results. Kappa 08:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is there any problem with Channel 4 being British, while the "fair use" rule is in the U.S. law? Sjakkalle 09:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Probably not while it is being hosted in the US. Burgundavia 13:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV, trivial. Abstain. Megan1967 10:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Did you even read what this is about? "100 Greatest Cartoons" is the name of the documentary. --brian0918&#153; 11:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: No Copyvio. You can copyright a piece of art or an article, you cannot copyright the facts. A list does not involve more than mere facts. With this argument no one could critisize scientific researchers because they could not cite them. Makes no sense to me. --Mononoke 12:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: how do you report the result of a poll without actually displaying the result? --Phil | Talk 16:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a genuine documentary; the article has the same name as the programme; there are many similar 'top 100 poll' articles on Wikipedia, and if stating the result is a copyright violation, then that surely calls lots of source material used throughout Wikipedia into question. (Yes, I am the article starter). --Vodex 19:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep its a notable TV program. I don't think that its a copyvio as the complete lists of the results of these sorts of polls are often published in newspapers and have been since the start of C4s obsession with these sorts of list programs in the late 1990s - if C4 wanted to enforce any copyright they had on the lists they'd have done it by now. Anyway, if we can't quote results of polls then we'll have to trim our articles on elections, the Eurovision Song Contest, referenda, etc. Thryduulf 09:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see nothing wrong with this article, if the material is truely copyrighted however, than that changes my opinion
• Comment We were through a similar debate on copyrights on a vfd-debate for 100 Worst Britons, another Channel 4 series. The debate is on that user's talkpage. That is just for your information, I will draw no conclusions... Sjakkalle 07:41, 14 Apr 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?) 21:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sasha Alexander Dolgy

Vanity, IP goes to England (IP Address: 81.171.130.212 Location: Basildon), also because acting credit: see IMDB only an extra (age 7). Speedy delete removed by user, and only edits by this IP to this article only. And since when an IT specialist is notable. I rest my case. Feydey 19:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like vandalism to me, especially since this bit of fluff has been expanded. Sorry, Sasha, but you don't warrant an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 22:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Not to be confused with American TV actress Sasha Alexander. 23skidoo 22:11, 12 Apr 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?) 21:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hi, I'm New Here"

• Delete no encyclopedic value. --Randolph 19:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say weak delete or merge or redirect. Feydey 20:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic Dsmdgold 20:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• MERGE should probably be placed into the Internet Trolling article Cheese Grits 20:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Though it is true that newbies place those words on a forum, I just do not think it should be an article of its own. Admittedly, I didn't read the article before posting this opinion... Zscout370 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Our coverage of internet trolling phenomena is already pretty comprehensive. Slac speak up! 00:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. Dave the Red (talk) 00:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything anybody ever said while trolling the net doesn't deserve a place in the trolling article. RickK 00:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, trivial. Megan1967 10:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this really serves no purpose here Zechenia 10:38, 13 Apr 2005
• Speedy delete, newbiecruft. ComCat 06:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to welcome page. --Spinboy 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like simply a silly article written for amusement -Husnock 04:10, 21 Apr 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?) 21:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Died to death

Delete Vanity page. --Randolph 19:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm a bit bemused that this is VfDed — it was marked as a speedy, being a defamatory load of nonsense. If you insist on this lengthy process, though, I've at least deleted the defamatory stuff, just leaving the semi-literate nonsense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sometimes I try to be nice, but this is utter crap. -- 8^D ^gab 21:08, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Delete, patent nonsense. Firebug 21:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as personal attack. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a personal attack and/or nonsense, whichever takes your fancy, but delete it. Thryduulf 23:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete since it does seem to be a personal attack. Zscout370 00:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this reads more like a personal attack than a vanity page. Megan1967 10:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily Delete what a load of rubbish. Brequinda 10:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily delete, preferebly faster than the current land speed record. I know what it's like to have an article deleted, but this is total crap. Forgotmytea

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 21:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theocon

Seems dangerously close to a neologism... been around for a while, but will this ever be more than a dicdef-style entry?Feco 20:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Coming into fairly wide use. Google search for "theo-con OR theocon" tops 50,000 hits. More than a dicdef, b/c it defines a movement (and has been adopted to self-define by some within that movement). -- 8^D ^gab 21:00, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Keep, as per 8^D. could and probably will expand (in fact, I'll go add a sentence or two myself). Meelar (talk) 21:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Either Keep or Redirect to Christian Right. I've heard this term before, often on left-leaning weblogs, and it's in common enough currency that I do think it should at least be a redirect. Firebug 21:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Christian Right. Megan1967 10:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree with redirect - shall we then redirect Neoconservative to Conservative? -- 8^D ^gab 23:24, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Keep -- and I speak as someone who has (inaccurately) been accused of being one of these. --Christofurio 23:32, Apr 16, 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?) 20:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Majority Choice Approval

Original research. Majority Choice Approval's only Google hits are the election-methods mailing list and Wikipedia. Delete. RSpeer 20:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops, forgot to finish nomination process. RSpeer 14:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to be active, judging from its history and talk pages, and it's mentioned on several individual criterion pages, such as monotonicity criterion and participation criterion. It may be present in published literature under a different name, but that's not a reason to delete. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:17, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • The reason it is referenced on so many pages is that the person who invented Majority Choice Approval contributed to most of those pages. The term does not come from published literature, but the election-methods@electorama.org mailing list, where obscure methods known by nobody else are debated endlessly. They have already set up Electowiki for this kind of information. If it is deleted, I will look for references in other articles and remove them. RSpeer 00:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, vanity. RickK 05:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Three simple words: No original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, delete. Radiant_* 09:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. For a minute or two, I was afraid we were seeing more Iasson material. Barno 16:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, there are significantly worse articles; e.g. Weak defensive strategy criterion, Strong defensive strategy criterion, Strategy-Free criterion, Generalized Strategy-Free criterion or Favorite Betrayal criterion. In my opinion, this article needs some work; but deleting this article would be the wrong signal. Markus Schulze
  • I don't think there being worse articles is a reason to keep this article, which completely fails Wikipedia's standards of notability. I will put the other articles up for VfD soon. RSpeer 01:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind about VfDing the others. After a bit of Googling, it seems that Mike Ossipoff's criteria have been quoted by numerous websites. Even if the criteria are flawed, I think we have to consider them notable, so I won't VfD them. Majority Choice Approval, on the other hand, is still not notable. RSpeer 01:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree this article needs some thoughtful editing, but deleting it would remove valuable information.--Fahrenheit451 21:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teletraffic GSM

This is a duplicate of GSM and in fact Category:GSM Standard with no new material, and a title which wouldn't be likely to be used for searching. I say delete. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete all articles at once, so I think they need to be listed individually. N.B. if a consensus did develop on the policy page then this VFD should probably be terminated early. Mozzerati 21:13, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Concur with that, delete. Radiant_* 09:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cell handover process

This is a duplicate of Handoff and parts of Cellular network with no new material and a title which wouldn't be likely to be used for searching. I say delete. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete all articles at once, so I think they need to be listed individually. N.B. if a consensus did develop on the policy page then this VFD should probably be terminated early. Mozzerati 21:09, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Concur with that, delete. Radiant_* 09:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cellular teletraffic

This is a duplicate of Global System for Mobile Communications and cellular network with no new material, and a title which wouldn't be likely to be used for searching. I say delete. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete all articles at once, so I think they need to be listed individually. N.B. if a consensus did develop on the policy page then this VFD should probably be terminated early. Mozzerati 21:06, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Concur with that, delete. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teletraffic common channel signalling

This is a duplicate of Signalling System 7 with no new material, some probably incorrect material and a title which wouldn't be likely to be used for searching. I say delete. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete all articles at once, so I think they need to be listed individually. N.B. if a consensus did develop on the policy page then this VFD should probably be terminated early. Mozzerati 20:51, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Concur with that, delete. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teletraffic Engineering in Multi-Service Networks

This is a duplicate of Multiplexing and ATM with no new material and a title which wouldn't be likely to be used for searching. I say delete. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete all articles at once, so I think they need to be listed individually. N.B. if a consensus did develop on the policy page then this VFD should probably be terminated early. Mozzerati 20:55, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

• Concur with that, delete. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. --Coolcaesar 19:10, 15 Apr 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?) 21:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Salaff

Appears to be self-promotion, a vanity page, or solely providing context to a source quoted in the talk page of an article. I pasted the text in the talk page of the Portlands Energy Centre article. I think the Stephen Salaff page should be deleted. Jim^{Collaborator «talk»} 21:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It is potentially useful content as a context for the Portlands Energy Centre page but not encyclopedic in itself. Dabbler 11:37, 12 Apr 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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spammism

Could find no evidence this is a widespread phenomenom. Kappa 22:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of multiple third party sources. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 10:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gerrit MUTE 11:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain your thinking? Kappa 17:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable joke. Dave the Red (talk) 19:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. --InShaneee 19:14, 12 Apr 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?) 21:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ursula Gupton

Not notable. Thue | talk 22:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Speedy delete if possible, vanity page. Howabout1 22:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:19, 2005 Apr 13 (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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the Threshold of Liquid Geology

• Delete, Advertising and Spam, Vanity Page, Non-Notable author. The book, "At the Threshold of Liquid Geology" is published by iUniverse.com, where anyone can get there book published, yet this does not require the need for mention in an encyclopedia article since the book is already being sold online. Wikipedia is being used to promote this book, see the policy on advertising and spam. The author, Eric W.Bragg has 719 google hits, his website surrealcoconut pulls in a lot of internet traffic due to the use of meta-filters and mirrors along with aggressive internet promotion. Note that the website is a free do-it-yourself site. Keep in mind that this book is a commercial product written by an unknown and non-notable author, and this is an encyclopedia. Please keep that fact in mind when voting.Classicjupiter2 23:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete books published by vanity presses. —Korath (Talk) 23:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable vanity-press book. Amazon lists this book as being published by "Writers Advantage," which does indeed look to be a vanity press associated with (or an imprint of) iUniverse. Amazon sales rank: 628,953. android↔talk 00:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert, spam, and not notable. I tend to be pretty liberal when it comes to including published authors and their works, even obscure ones. However, I don't feel that this extends to the vanity press, who will publish pretty much anything (for a fee, of course). Wikipedia is NOT for the promotion of vanity-press books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Query. How do you qualify a "real" author? Is an author who sells, say, 1000 books out of a major publisher given preference over one who sells twelve hundred out of a P.O.D. house, even though the non-mainstream author's sales would say he's more popular? How many books does an outsider author have to sell to warrant wikification? Iconoclast 23:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't quite speak for every wikipedian, but the general consensus is that vanity-press books don't count as published books, since as I mentioned they will publish (almost) anything for money. For works with actual literary merit, there's plenty of publishers out there, from mainstream to local to tiny indies, and anything remotely decent WILL get published if the author tries hard enough. I hate to make harsh statements like "no real author would use a vanity press", but that's basically the truth. Just ask any writer or anyone in publishing what their opinion of the vanity press is. And I also don't support any arbitrary sales figure for notability of authors or books, 1000, 1200, 2000 copies, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Agree with android. --bainer 12:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 19:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Adds nothing knowledgeable, seems to be just a promotion, Vanity Bakudai

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