Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE (5 delete, 1 neutral/merge, 1 keep). jni 09:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Threshold in Polish mythology[edit]

A complete and utter nonesence, badly written by an anon, as far as I can tell. Linked only from an ambigous 'see also' at Slavic mythology. The unused redirects Thresholds (Polish mythology) and Threshold (Polish mythology) should go as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • delete, unsupported by anything. Halibutt 01:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Katefan0 19:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Utterly useless. Delete. Edeans 03:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but I am not convinced that this is "utter nonsense." There are a wide variety of folklore beliefs about passing through doors; many cultures believe that doors are appropriate places to hang lucky charms or have rituals to bless them. If this is accurate it wants merger (?) with a larger article that covers these beliefs generally, but I am at a loss to say what that article is. --Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 23:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Willy's[edit]

Doesn't seem like a significant restaurant. Not much info there except that they make good food. Elf | Talk 00:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 00:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above, not notable. --bainer 02:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, reads like a promo/ad. Megan1967 02:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. Inter 12:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a local chain of burrito joints extremely popular with Emory University students. Since it's a local business I could have supported keeping the article if it said something about why people there love it, but since it doesn't, delete. Katefan0 19:38, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gives me the willies. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whody[edit]

  • Delete, nn slangdef. --fvw* 00:36, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, dictionary definition. Megan1967 02:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Xezbeth 06:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 22:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 9 votes to delete and 5 to keep. This is a clear majority but not the overwhelming majority generally required to establish evidence of concensus. In reviewing the article, I found that the link to the professor's home page) is not working, undermining the ability of readers to verify elements of the article. In reviewing the arguments presented below, I note that the "keep" votes for the most part simply stated "published author". From available evidence, policy statements and an extensive study of our precedents, I do not believe that the general community concensus supports such a low standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.

After a great deal of consideration, I am going to exercise my discretion and delete the article. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Hampsey[edit]

Non-notable professor. One wonders if the poster is one of his English students. RickK 00:45, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test (less than 100 hits, approx. half of which are unrelated to the professor). Megan1967 02:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails the "average professor test" --Carnildo 07:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What's the "average professor test"? While I'm wondering, I'll say that this seems a more interesting and notable achievement to me than do those of most of the people listed on, say List of current American football players. -- Hoary 09:46, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies Thinking about it, it seems only logical that some college professors will be below average. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    • Regarding football players and such vs. college professors—le sigh, so true. Systemic bias is a bitch. However more deserving of deletion the grunts are, though, I can't in good conscience give Hampsey a keep without violating WP:POINT. —Korath (Talk) 03:08, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • The bad punctuation and spelling in the original leads me to doubt that the poster was an English student. Modified article. A one-book wonder. Delete. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 17:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a published author, after all.Zantastik 07:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published author of work that has received good reviews.Capitalistroadster 09:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Published author. --Centauri 21:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence yet presented that he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Being a published author alone is insufficient. Essentially all professors publish something. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, published author. —RaD Man (talk) 22:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Added section on career. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. On the evidence in the article, he's just an average prof. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Google test with less than 100 hits, and those seem to be mainly about his book. No more than an average professor. Cal State at San Luis Obispo isn't bad, but it isn't prestigious either. His one book, published by the Univ of Virginia Press, has an Amazon sales rank of about 550,000, meaning very low sales. Howard Zinn's quote was probably just a courtesy blurb, as they were together at Boston University for a while. As another Wikipedian said elsewhere, there is something unseemly about a bunch of nobodies ruling on the notability of anyone. But that is the criterion for inclusion of a biography in the Wikipedia, and it has to be that way. --BM 01:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You can make the same claim for most encyclopaedias. If anything their criteria is much more strict. Megan1967 02:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Ritter[edit]

The bits that establish alleged notability are inherently unverifiable. --fvw* 01:06, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Yes, that's right, I voted to delete something. --Centauri 01:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, articles like this should be speediable. Gazpacho 01:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And it's been speedily deleted at least once today already... by me. Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That was an entirely different article (well, "article"...) though. --fvw* 01:41, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete It really should have been given the "nonsense" tag. An obvious speedy. --LeeHunter 01:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I deleted it. Elf | Talk 01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • And it's been recreated in slightly slimmer form. I don't think this is a CSD, so I suggest we let it ride out its VfD. --fvw* 02:00, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Curps 05:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I've re-deleted it. Future histories are inherently nonsense and therefore valid speedy deletes. RickK 06:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 23:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pope hat[edit]

Unnecessary disambig page. Is anyone really going to search for this exact term? -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The thing is, I think they will actually. I was thinking of suggesting it be redirected to mitre, but I hadn't thought of the crown thingy. Keep. --fvw* 03:14, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    • Having read the discussion below I agree that this shouldn't be the location of the dab article. Move to some apropriate name for this dab and redirect pope hat there. --fvw* 23:25, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard the term used before. --Goobergunch|? 05:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Francs. Megan1967 05:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, many protestants have never heard the word "mitre," but know that the pope wears one. Gazpacho 06:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting. JuntungWu 06:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 06:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't personally find it interesting. However, we have articles turned into redirects for (reasonable) spelling mistakes and for miscapitalizations, and the usual argument is "Well, someone obviously actually made this mistake.". It seems likely that someone might think that there would be an article under Pope's hat. However, I'm less convinced that someone would expect an article to be entitled Pope hat. History doesn't show this as being a duplicate article that someone turned into a disambiguation page. This started off as a disambiguation page, and so the "somebody actually made this mistake" argument isn't supported. Move to Pope's hat then Redirect to Pope. No Merge is necessary, as the disambiguation is already there, in the first paragraph of the Regalia and insignia section. Uncle G 13:11, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    • You might be surprised at this Google search which includes results for both "Pope hat" and "Pope's hat", where "Pope hat" actually seems slightly more commonly used. — Ливай | ☺ 17:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly good disambig. sjorford:// 16:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pope, for reasons stated above. There probably should be a similar redirect for Pope's hat. --TenOfAllTrades 17:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it could use a rewording, though. —Mar·ka·ci 18:17, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename, rename to like Headresses of the Pope or something like that. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, like Gazpacho said. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Delete. This is just silly. Gamaliel 19:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful and non-trivial. A bit too small, though. Pope's garments of papal garments would be a better collection. Mikkalai 21:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What would it say that isn't already in the Regalia and insignia section of pope? Uncle G 13:14, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
      • When you edit Pope, you get "Please consider condensing the page" message. Why don't we cut the Papal regalia and insignia and redirect this hapless hat there? Mikkalai 22:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Works for me. Gazpacho 22:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Fine by me. My vote was Redirect already. I'm not bothered by whether it redirects to Pope or to an article broken out of it. Uncle G 18:19, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • Odd little disambig page, ain't it? I can honestly imagine someone typing "pope hat" into the search window if they were unsure of the proper terms. Weak keep. - Lucky 6.9 22:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Typing that into the search form and pressing the "Search" button yields pope as the third article title match. Wikipedia's cough idiosyncratic search form design, where the default action is "Go", might cause some confusion. But should we have an article title for every possible search term, such as "pope hat" for example, just because Wikipedia's user interface is badly designed? Uncle G 13:14, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • Keep Why would anyone think this could harm Wikipedia? Philip 02:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Responding to Gazpacho - are you really even sure that that many Roman Catholics know what a mitre is? - RedWordSmith 05:47, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep--this article is extremely useful. I'd have no idea what to search for, if this didn't exist. Meelar (talk) 06:12, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Come now! You'd have a vague inkling that pope might have something to say on the subject, surely? Uncle G 13:14, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
      • True, but I'd just as soon not have to skim through the bulk of Pope. Best, Meelar (talk) 19:26, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. For the love of God. I mean, really now. Come on. —RaD Man (talk) 22:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Case closed. I made it into a redirect to Papal regalia and insignia, which actually makes much more sense about papal hats than the two separate articles (Mitre is actually an episcopal hat). Mikkalai 00:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with redirect. — Ливай | ☺ 17:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What the hell. I was raised as an Presbyterian, and even I know about papal regalia. Jeez. Edeans 04:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with redirect. —Korath (Talk) 07:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good move. That's also a perfect way to have addressed Uncle G's concerns. - Lucky 6.9 17:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Locke and Bass[edit]

Non-notable web comic [1] --LeeHunter 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "It is not updated on a regular basis because the creators are too lazy to update." They said it. --bainer 01:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bainer said it. Inter 12:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, short-lived webcomic. — Gwalla | Talk 00:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kirbybeam[edit]

Neologism, dicdef. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Francs2000. Google test (a quite miserable failure) for those interested. --Goobergunch|? 06:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Dictdef. Inter 12:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John O'Hart[edit]

Non-notable. RickK 00:37, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

John O'Hart is one of the most famous genealogist of all time. And as the creator and primary editor of this article I resent any attempt at deletion. [--Wikibancroft63]

  • Resent all you want. Discuss the notability of the person. RickK 05:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • This wasn't added to the main VfD page which is why it's listed on the 2 feb page thought it was created on 1 feb. Weak delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 03:12, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    • It WAS included. SOMEBODY deleted. I don't feel the compulsion to find out who it might have been. RickK 05:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not according to the edit history I'm afraid. --fvw* 06:02, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
        • How odd. I wonder how that happened? RickK 06:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google returns 1,790 hits for "John O'Hart", and the first bunch appear to be this John O'Hart. --Goobergunch|? 05:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He appears rather notable in the field of Irish genealogy. Not the most critical or reliable genealogist perhaps, but that is a trait he shares with many influential genealogists of the past (and the present, for that matter). His 800-page The Irish and Anglo-Irish landed gentry (Dublin 1884) was reprinted in 1969, with an introduction by Edward MacLysaght, the first Chief Herald of Ireland. Another work, Irish pedigrees; or, The origin and stem of the Irish nation (1876) appears to have come out in several subsequent editions and is still available on Amazon. (I checked the Library of Congress and British Library catalogues. The Irish and Anglo-Irish landed gentry is also available in the Swedish Royal Library.) / up land 12:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the basis of Uppland's information. --BM 12:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of information provided by up land. GRider\talk 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why don't Uppland put all this stuff into the article in the first place? No vfd question will arise in the future. Mikkalai 21:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I added the bibliographical information now, but somebody more knowledgeable about the field needs to take a look at the article. / up land 22:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This sort of nomination is both fatuous and a threat to the ability of Wikipedia to retain contributors. Philip 02:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Bite me. RickK 05:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep present article. For the record, I know for a fact that RickK would never place a fatuous nomination to this page nor would he disrupt the site in any way. He is simply too conscientious a user for that. If he nominated this for deletion, there was a reason, plain and simple. Deep, cleansing breath...aah. - Lucky 6.9 00:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, keep. Nomination was correct though, I sort of wanted to post a comment to support RickK's valuable work. JuntungWu 17:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Kudos to both Uppland for his work on the article and to RickK for nominating it. We should try to keep these discussions civil and focus on the merits of the nominated article and its subject as articles in Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 23:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BWDM Records[edit]

Not a speedy delete candidate, but a substub at best. Delete unless expanded.-gadfium 03:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 03:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, Google test shows 4 hits (with 421 other similar pages omitted). Megan1967 05:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article should be expanded, not deleted.warpozio 10:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal vote of delete unless someone can convince otherwise. GRider\talk 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Delete 9 / Keep 5 -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in Connecticut[edit]

I think the need is better served by the Category:High schools in the United States and subcategories of that, although they of course won't list schools we don't have an article about. There are a number of similar articles, see High schools in the United States, which was also listed for speedy. No vote.-gadfium 03:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Categories are insufficient at this time to handle all our schools, especially in light of recent events where valuable school articles have been deleted on grounds of not being "noteworthy enough". GRider\talk 19:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you would care to elaborate on how two sentence articles that essential say X school is in Y city and the principal is named Bob are in any way valuable even if it were true that all schools deserve articles. Or had you forgotten that wikipedia is not a yellowpages? Indrian 19:09, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only reason that categories are inadequate is if the aim is to have high schools listed that are insufficiently notable to have articles in the Wikipedia. There are numerous problems with such lists:
  1. There are aproximately 17,000 high schools in the United States. How are all these high schools going to be entered on the lists?
  2. Some large states have between 500 and 1000 high schools; the state-level lists for these states will be extremely unwieldy.
  3. Who is going to verify that additions to the lists are correct and accurate? Are you volunteering? There will be numerous omissions and inaccuracies, misspellings, and format differences from one state-level list to another. There are only a handful of states now, and the state-level lists are already inconsistent with one another. A major problem will be non-existent "fantasy" high schools added by people, named after themselves, high schools from novels, etc. It will be a very tall order for editors to keep these lists clean.
  4. Don't forget that someone is also going to need to delete high schools that have closed. High schools close all the time. (Mine did, not long after I graduated from it.) Who are the editors who are going to remove high schools as they close?
  5. What is the point? So that every American high school can have its name in lights in the Wikipedia? Being on a list of 17000 high schools isn't exactly "name in lights", anyway. What reasonable reader goal do these lists serve? Who is interested in a list of the names of high schools and the towns where they are located, and why?
In short, the lists will inevitably be more low-quality crap in the Wikipedia. This is not the sort of thing that can be done well by a wiki. It is for all these reasons that Wikipedia is not a general information base, and in particular is not the Directory of American High Schools. --BM 19:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete categories work fine. Schools without articles can be listed on pages about educational provision in their local region. Schools which require articles can be listed on the requested articles pages. Mozzerati 22:43, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what catagories should be used for. humblefool® 23:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 02:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Saying this is a job for Cats seems to assume there should be separate articles for every single cookie-cutter high school in the world. I'd rather have all the info collected on group pages like this, in a table like I've created (since it's 80k and overwidth, I obviously need to do some cleanup, but I don't want to work any more on it if it might get deleted) using annually updated public domain US govt data, that's easily downloaded in an easily convertible CSV file, and which is as likely to be accurate as anything else on Wikipedia. Or the better one I created at Rhode Island schools. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District is a good example about how alumni info, etc. can be incorporated into the tables. I've created around a dozen of these tables (you can see most of them at San_Jose,_California#Primary_and_secondary_education), and I'm still experimenting a bit with the exact presentation, but for the most part they're a fairly standard fmt. I was going to say my alternative vote would be to redir to the Cat, so people can get to the info (casual visitors are NOT going to know to look for Category:High schools in Connecticut), but, hey, look. It doesn't exist, even tho' we have at least five articles on high schools in Connecticut. Also, no one seems to be complaining about things like List of Friends Schools and List of Ottawa, Ontario schools. Niteowlneils 05:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • hey, look. It doesn't exist Then click on that little red link, and hey, your problems are over. Updating a nearly 300-item table list: easy; creating a single category: difficult. --Calton 11:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is the value to Wikipedia of this list? If the source is easy enough to add, well, why not just direct people to the source to begin with? --Calton 11:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. Where would we direct them from, exactly? If this article is deleted, how do we point people typing "high schools in connecticut" to [2]?
  2. Well, it's easy after you've done a few, and if you know exactly what info you're looking for. The tables I've created have taken a bit less than a dozen clicks for the simple ones, way more than a dozen clicks for the more detailed ones.
  3. 'Far too long if complete' seems like a spurious argument--like any article that gets too long, it can be subdivided, in this case either by county or school district (in the case of California, probably both). Niteowlneils 20:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worthless unless complete; far too long if complete. —Korath (Talk) 13:43, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. List are good for stuff not that notable by their own. bbx 17:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete these unmaintainable lists. We have categories for a reason, and this is it. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unwieldly and far better acheived with categories. Also, there seems to be a contradiction here. If all schools are inherently notable and deserve their own articles as some claim, then why do we need a list containing those high schools which are not notable enough to have their own articles as claimed above? Indrian 19:09, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Because the high school inclusionists are dissatisfied with the fact that occasionally they "lose" a VfD vote, even though they "win" in the majority of cases. They want a way to slip those "unfairly" suppressed high schools in somehow. What anyone finds interesting or useful about a list of high school names is totally beyond me. --BM 21:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use a category. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Individual schools are not inherently notable, and once the academic boosterism and outright padding is winnowed away, most articles about them say little more than "{{placename}} School is a school in {{subst:placename}} managed by {{subst:headteacher}} with {{subst:number}} pupils". Alas! It is, unfortunately, exactly that sort of article that lists of redlinks encourage. Overwikified lists are perennial sources of articles on non-notable subjects, as people "helpfully" recolour the redlinks with non-articles padded with chaff. This despite the admonition that Wikipedia is not a repository of links (neither external nor internal).
    However, these articles do not redlink the individual schools, avoiding that trap. (And, of course, there is nothing to stop a bluelink being made after a rare notable school has had an article of its own created.) Moreover, articles in this form can collect all of the individual "{{placename}} School is a school in {{subst:placename}} managed by {{subst:headteacher}} with {{subst:number}} pupils" non-articles into tabular form, adding enough information by dint of being an organized collection, where summary and overview information can be added as footnotes, to raise the article level with the notability bar. They are also far more maintainable than 17000 such individual articles would be.
    The remaining arguments against such articles are arguments against having the data at all, either in single-list-article form or in 17000-individual-articles form: Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base and Wikipedia is not a directory. These are the arguments that winnow the all-too-often-added padding (telephone numbers, teacher lists, forthcoming school plays and sports competitions, and so forth) from the school articles yielding the bare single-sentence descriptions, of course. However, as long as these "list of" articles meet the purpose of lists by providing more information than the raw data do alone, by dint of collating and summarizing those data and providing general information; and since these "list of" articles are appropriate topics for lists, I vote Move to the correct List of high schools in X form, Keep with the cautions that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and Wikipedia is not a directory, and send to Cleanup for all but one of the articles which do not meet the standard of ("List of") High schools in Connecticut and simply do not contain enough data to meet the purpose of lists. Uncle G 13:39, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree completely with BM. RadicalSubversiv E 23:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

University of Toronto Engineering Society[edit]

Nothing in this article worth keeping. Not notable. --Spinboy 04:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, but should be merged with Skule. - SimonP 04:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • U of T engineering school culture is noted around the area and across Canada – positively, for their infamous satirical publishing program, and negatively, for past controversies over sexism and sexual harassment. Keep information; preferably as an expandible article, but if a merger target is needed, there's always Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering. Samaritan 05:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 05:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, But can just redirect to Skule really. Inter 12:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Skule, but I'm not sure which way. University of Toronto Engineering Society seems to be the full/formal name, and Skule seems to be a colloquial term. If I had to pick, I'd redirect the colloquial term to the formal name. —Mar·ka·ci 17:13, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not merge. GRider\talk 19:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mlm42 05:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs expansion. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

6chan[edit]

Something which doesn't exist yet is usually unencyclopedic. -- Curps 04:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Mar·ka·ci 04:31, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not yet notable. Megan1967 05:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not yet and never will be extant. humblefool® 06:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, You want to do the what now? Inter 12:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • One would think that. Although the wide range of encyclopaedia articles telling us all about stuff which won't exist until the 24th century rather contradicts that maxim. It's an advertisement, yet another attempt to manipulate Google via Wikipedia in order to promote something. I've neutered it. Delete. Uncle G 13:58, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide, especially for sites that do not exist yet. Even if it did exist, the best it could do would be to get merged with image board. — Gwalla | Talk 00:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A blatant, and grammatically poor, attempt to promote a website that doesn't yet exist. The only notable thing about sites like 6chan is that they rarely come to fruition, or if they do, the creators usually get bored and don't update them anyway.
  • Delete. Jeshii 02:24, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 22:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bill DaSilva[edit]

Looks like a vanity page. About a hundred Google hits on the name, but most are for a pilot, a golfer, and a brewer. I haven't found a single reference to Bill DaSilva as a musician. LizardWizard 04:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Article does not establish notability and the subject fails a Google test. Unless some links are added and some kind of notability is demonstrated, delete. --Goobergunch|? 05:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, 103 Google hits with a quarter not of this person, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, The article could use cleanup too, if it was to be kept, which it isn't. Inter 12:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.. Xezbeth 06:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 16:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Musicman[edit]

There's no evidence that the Internet message board where this guy apparently po'ed someone enough to make this entry for him is notable, let alone one poster who, as the entry tells us, has "faded into obscurity". Let's let the article go the same way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • "Musicman was a poster on an online message board called Music Babble in the early 21st century." This is an attack page, also. Delete (or speedy as an attack). Samaritan 05:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly useless. Alexs letterbox 05:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, What next? Inter 12:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then redirect to The Music Man. —Mar·ka·ci 15:24, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AIM W3rm[edit]

Nonexistent and implausible worm. No Google hits. --Goobergunch|? 05:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • delete (speedy?) this nonsense Mozzerati 22:36, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-sense RJFJR 19:08, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and allow for organic deletion. GRider\talk 22:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It happened to me. none 7 Feb 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 DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 23:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does God Exist?[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Dump of HTML-formatted transcript of a debate. Available elsewhere on the web. 209.188.109.56 05:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. dbenbenn | talk 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Free The Gnomes[edit]

BJAODN. RickK 05:56, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • I merged it to Garden Gnome Liberation Front right after you added the notice; it's now a redirect. My mistake, but might be the best plan here. humblefool® 06:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. But Garden Gnome Liberation Front needs attention. It does not mention, for example, that the GGLF meme is a prank/practical joke, or that it was mostly a 90's thing which has more or less played itself out. Our article reads like the GGLF/FTG web-site, and pitches the gnome liberation schtick with a completely straight face. NPOV does not require us to pretend it is serious, even if the pranksters themselves do. --00:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the Justice of Roosting Chickens[edit]

Somebody ranting. -- Curps 06:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, personal essay. --Goobergunch|? 06:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep new article. --Goobergunch|? 01:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay, and if it isn't a copyvio too I'll eat my hat. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete rant. all of them under 12 is an obvious falsehood. Even if this were true, which it isn't, it isn't ours. RickK 06:08, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Ranting and raving. Inter 12:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic POV rant, copyright violation. Megan1967 00:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now it's totally rewritten. -- Toytoy 08:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't have removed the VfD notice while there's still a vote going on... also, you should have used the /Temp page to create a new article. Perhaps the voting should start anew, though, since this is now an entirely different article. -- Curps 19:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks for your noticing. -- Toytoy 04:37, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The new version looks just fine. LizardWizard 04:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. New version is much better. Gwimpey 05:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Attracted a lot of attention. Thanks to Toytoy for rewriting. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable book. --FOo 16:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Backs up the article Ward Churchill. Fred Bauder 22:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 22:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. as revised the article iw worthwhile. -Willmcw 23:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

One vote to "merge" was ignored, as you can't merge to a red link. Of course, anyone who wants to move or merge this article is free to. dbenbenn | talk 22:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kryon[edit]

Sure, it might look clean, but wait till you actually start reading it. It becomes nonsense really fast. humblefool® 06:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment (I try not to vote on non-clear-cut cases at 1:12 AM). Google returns 67,000 hits for "Kryon". Sure it looks like nonsense, but could it be nonsense that people believe in? --Goobergunch|? 06:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Then it needs cleanup. Agreed, 11PM might be a bad time to look at articles. Blegh, I'll thinks about it. humblefool® 06:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone should tell "Lee Caroll and the Kryon Group" that they are the victims of a cruel hoax. They aren't channelling "a disembodied entity of a different order than human". They are channelling Erich von Däniken. The Google Groups test is unclear. Many of the mentions of "Kyron" are "What is this Kyron stuff, then? I've not heard of it.", "I have Kyron books for sale.", or spoof Star Trek episodes. The future is cloudy. Come back later, when the spirits will be more willing to vote. Uncle G 13:43, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. At a first read this article looks like a possible hoax or nonsense, however it is generating a number of hits on Google (10,000+), so it does pass the Google test. Since we have a number of fictious characters, games and worlds on Wikipedia already - with lesser Google hits, I am inclined to vote keep on this article, for now. Megan1967 00:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but send to cleanup. Much as I hate to encourage crackpots, a book search on Amazon.com returns 27 hits for Lee Caroll and kryon. Katefan0 19:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Lee Carroll has written a bunch of books which are available on Amazon and he and Kryon seem to pass the Google test. By Wikipedia standards, we have to keep this -- meaning that we will now have another embarrassment on the Wikipedia. There will be two groups of editors hurling "POV warrior" insults at each other. The first group will be trying to have the article say, effectively, "Lee Carroll is either a New Age kook or a con-man trying to bilk you out of your money". This will be the truth. The other group will be fighting to have the article say "Kryon is an disembodied entity whose pearls of wisdom for humanity are channelled by Lee Carroll who has kindly published 26 books about Kryon." There will be RfC's, mediations, arbitrations, cooling off periods with the article blocked, and lots of pastel-colored template boxes permanently on the article. It will end up saying "Lee Carroll is either a kook, or he is a con-man, or he is channelling a disembodied entity of a higher order, named Kryon". --BM 21:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that that will be the case. Gene Ray's edits to his own article become neutralised pretty rapidly, for example. And fraudsters can be dealt with, too. Both without coloured boxes. (The boxes here are warranted in part because this article is nowhere near the quality of the others.) It's only the religions where there is a significantly large number of militant adherents where there are real problems. And in that, Wikipedia is reflecting the real world. Uncle G 13:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Lee Carrll, remove extraneous list at the bottom, rewrite to make it a bio-stub that says "Lee Carroll is either a kook, or he is a con-man, or he is channelling a disembodied entity of a higher order, named Kryon". - UtherSRG 01:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, it's a load of nonsense that any adult with an IQ higher than doormat should be able to see through, but then that's the same for any religion. In this case (and in its current state) at least it adopts a neutral tone towards the nonsense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo/BS. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Move I only get 104 Google hits for "Kryon Group". Detail about extremely minor new religious movement. Merge with Lee Carroll or Kryon Group. -Willmcw 23:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep 2 / Delete 2. No consensus...keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Honey Glaze[edit]

No-budget film. 10 votes on imdb.. Wouldn't even consider it a B-movie. Xezbeth 06:13, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it has a distributor and is for sale on amazon anyway (sales rank among DVDs: 51,462), so it's slightly above a movie some guy made with his friends. The $2000 budget makes me think the actors were hardly paid. This could be a very weak keep, but the article says nothing. If the author can't be bothered to expand it I seriously doubt any of the other 9 people who have seen it will. If an actual article, not a substub, can be written before the VfD is done I may change my vote to keep, but until then delete. -R. fiend 18:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable enough to rise to the level of an encyclopedia. Katefan0 19:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep but with reservations. Because a film is low-budget does not mean that it not notable. This article is pushing the limits though. Needs definite expansion if its stays. Megan1967 05:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, article formatted and expanded from original VfD. Megan1967 03:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Dwain 19:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michael Legge (filmmaker)[edit]

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speculations[edit]

see also Kent Brewster

Doesn't seem very notable, probably vanity. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Week Delete. While the author seems to be notable, search for 'Speculations "Kent Brewster"' finds very few results. Speculations.com is the first Google hit out of one million for "Speculations", but that is probably because of the title match. Alexa doesn't seem to be working, but Google's What Links Here finds about 350 pages. — Asbestos | Talk 14:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If the part about being up for Hugos seven times is correct, then it's notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just passes notability test for me. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 00:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 04:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. The info about the Hugos is correct. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 22:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kent Brewster[edit]

see also Speculations

Doesn't seem very notable, probably vanity. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment, Google Yields some 4k hits on this name, with at least the first page being pages about this person. Inter 11:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I get 400k hits, of which the first two pages are all on this author. The current article looks like vanity, though, so it should be cleaned up. — Asbestos | Talk 14:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and please cease senseless deletionism. An effortless search indicates this is a noteworthy individual. GRider\talk 19:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion, notable author - passes Google test. Megan1967 00:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. Notable author within science fiction genre.Capitalistroadster 09:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Added some stuff to the article and added stubs for sci-fi and literature to the article. Change vote to keep and expand.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - Keep 3 / Delete 5) -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update. This vote has been tallied incorrectly. Votes to delete: Xezbeth, Inter, Asbestos, R. fiend, Megan1967, GRider. Votes to keep: Starblind, Plank. Ignored: ConfessedSockPuppetJunior (troll). As the votes are 6-2 to delete, I'll go delete this article now. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Duncan Putney[edit]

Played "Solicitor in car" in Mystic River.. and in a no-budget film. Un-notable. Xezbeth 06:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Failed to obtain notability (so far). Inter 11:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. — Asbestos | Talk 14:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the most notable thing you can say about this guy is that his brother is in the Air Force then we've got a problem. -R. fiend 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah, there's that, but there's also the fact that he was in a movie that was up for six Oscars last year, including Best Picture. Granted, it was apparently a small part, but I'd still say that's a lot more notable than most VfD candidates. Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. more writing needed. i want to know what he did. wherecunilook? ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 00:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable yet - only 34 Google hits for "Duncan Putney" with "actor". Megan1967 03:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 22:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP!!! Plank

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dan Bryan[edit]

Obvious vanity. --Slowking Man 06:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neutralitytalk
  • Delete. Vanity, though he did meet some highly influential people in his short life:) HowardB 10:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 11:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 14:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 00:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Uprising MUSH[edit]

Star Wars: Uprising MUSH (SWU) is a Star Wars-themed MUSH (Multi-User Shared Hallucination) starts this article, written by somebody who, er, claims to be the creator of Star Wars (:) Uprising MUSH. To me, it sounds less unappealing than does the Multi-Couch-Potato Shared Hallucination of the commercial product, but I don't suppose this counts. (After all, we must genuflect to the media moguls, and keep spending.) Vanity starwarscruft. -- Hoary 09:27, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

  • Delete. Oh, my god... HowardB 10:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, As much as I like MUD's in general, we ain't a listing service. Inter 11:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are thousands of MU*s on the internet, and this one shows no evidence of being any more encyclopedic than the rest. —Korath (Talk) 11:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry about this. I saw the other list on MU*_games and figured it was acceptable, but wasn't really thinking. It wasn't my intention to subvert the system, so go ahead and remove it -- there's plenty of other channels for it, anyway. --Tarison 12:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Based on the preceding, I have added the {{deletebecause}} tag to the article. --BM 12:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gary E. Luck[edit]

Not noteworthy. Doesn't seem that he'll be encyclopedic. Dismas 14:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. He's notable enough, and considering the "current events" nature of his work, this article definitely has the potential to grow. --Deathphoenix 20:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not notable enough! Are you joking? Philip 02:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. There are more than 500 current news stories in Google News alone for gary-luck OR gary-e-luck. In fact, he should clear the notability bar for his previous career alone: commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, four-star general... Samaritan 21:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as reasoned by Samaritan. — Ливай | ☺ 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep more than obviously fits within "Wikipedia is not paper" and probably fits within encyclopedic. Mozzerati 22:29, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. A four star US General as he was has definite potential to be encyclopedic and given his current role, he is definitely notable.Capitalistroadster 10:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Have added some info on his military career including South Korea and the Gulf War. I have also added it as a military stub.Capitalistroadster 05:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I realize now that I was too quick to just hit the VfD key. Expansion would be the way to go, IMO. Dismas 11:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This was a keeper to begin with, and even moreso with Capitalistroadster's fine additions. GRider\talk 22:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Viewtiful[edit]

An attempt to derive a neologism from the name of a character in a video game. On a cursory search, no Google hits were found that weren't related to the video game itself. Uncle G 18:24, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

  • If viewtiful means anything, this isn't it, no will it ever be used. Delete. humblefool® 23:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Viewtiful Joe. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism/game fancruft. No point in a redirect—if somebody knows this "word", they know the full name of the game. — Gwalla | Talk 00:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Someone might be wondering if this word means anything outside the game. Kappa 05:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Viewtiful Joe. Megan1967 00:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--- This article serves no purpose, becuase 'viewtuful' isn't a real word, and isn't in use at all outside of the game series. Even if it were a word, this would be a Wiktionary article. Ikefox 21:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Waah[edit]

I just keep thinking of that beer commercial. "Wazaaah!" Uncle G 18:37, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

And how is what you were thinking about makes a page applicable to be deleted. The reason i've created this page is that when this game was mentioned in a discussion i've had i did what i normally do... ie looked for it on wiki, and it didn't exist, so then i've had to create a reference to it. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Delete Naah! --Lee Hunter 21:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (no vote) I think it's wikipedia policy for at least nominators to give reasons for deletion. I suppose the problem here is "non-notability". Kappa 21:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete cos it's unverifiable and the article is unencyclopedic. Mozzerati 22:26, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic, non-notable...have I missed anything? — Gwalla | Talk 00:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tried googling waah and game and got 10,000 hits, but didn't see any relevant ones. I wasn't about to look through 10,000 articles so I tried "Waah game" and got about a dozen (again, nothing relevent), and waah "stupid question" (200+, didn't see anything there either). I'm calling this unverified and unencyclopedic. -R. fiend 19:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm trying to work out whether this is the dumbest game I've ever heard of. It may be, and I wish I hadn't. It's certainly not particularly encyclopaedic. Oh, and googling "waah game" and "stupid question" gets zero hits. Grutness|hello? 08:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All right stop robbing it in, delete it already, i'll see if this info can be put together with something else, and then maybe it'll be encyclopaedic Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Delete. Not notable. Unverifiable. Probably the author just made it up, meaning its "original research". --BM 18:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually you are wrong, but as i've already said, i'm giving up trying to prove anything about this page. I mean look at Penis game, with that in mind Waah is definately fake, right? Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
OK, so you didn't make it up. It still does not seem notable, and if you have some information that it really exists, please let us have it. Who plays this game? Where is it played? What is the history of the game? It is so stupid, it is hard to believe that it really exists except in someone's imagination. --BM 22:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shivrajan Ramgopaulsingh[edit]

An anon copied this information from the Bharrat Jagdeo page and created this page. (The anon also added Shivrajan Ramgopaulsingh as the current President of Guyana on the Guyana page). Nonsense page. Guettarda 19:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete duplicate information. --Deathphoenix 20:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as soon as possible. All of the article's assertions are factually incorrect. Though I do hate Jagdeo's government, he has not resigned yet. --Sesel 00:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate information, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chinese ethnocentrism[edit]

The page contains a short piece of text that is merely a (poorly-written) definition of Ethnocentrism, with “Chinese” inserted. No reason is offered for thinking that there's anything significant about Chinese ethnocentrism, or anything that isn't covered on the main ethnocentrism page. I've tried a couple of times to delete it and make it a redirect page, but my edit has been reverted, both times by people active in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism debate, one giving no reason, the other leaving a message on my Talk page labelling me “left wing”. (Update, 3rd Feb. 05: the same user, User:Jacquerie27, after pestering me on my Talk page, started looking up the articles I've started, combing them for minor, often imagined errors of grammar, sometimes leaving snide messages about me on the relvant Talk pages (see Churchill, Oxfordshire & Bachelor of Philosophy). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC))

My suggestion is that the page be deleted (as it has no content that needs to be merged) and turned into a redirect page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The very title of this article is POV, so it's hard to see how an article with this title can ever be made NPOV. -- Curps 19:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect. I agree with Curps that an article with this title can't be made NPOV. By the same token, I don't see the value of redirecting a POV title like this to an NPOV title. This would be tantamount to redirecting "miserable failure" to George W. Bush. :-) --Deathphoenix 19:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete with no redirect Mozzerati 22:15, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete For the reasons listed above. Clever point about "miserable failure" -- I agree, in that such a redirect would be POV (however funny that particular Google bomb is).Zantastik 07:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete However, if the article is rewritten to provide evidence that ethnocentrism in China is unique, it should not be speedied. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Delete - original research - David Gerard 10:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Expanding the frontiers of the Semitism War to include more articles is a plain case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. To make the different and overriding point that we don't allow such disruption, I vote Delete. Uncle G 18:17, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced, POV, original research. No re-direct. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 81 Google hits, of which many are Wikipedian in origin. (The correct term is Sinocentrism.) GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons given by others. --BM 01:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Sinocentrism redirects to Chinese nationalism, but this isn't quite the same thing. Delete. -Sean Curtin 07:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite each and every word. I am Chinese. I am not supposed to say anything about this issue. If you are a foreigner living in a Chinese society and people discriminate you because of your race or nationality, that's ethnocentrism. I am not supposed to say that my country has no problem with ethnocentrism. This question is better answered by other people. Chinese ethnocentrism was real. As late as some 100 years ago, many Chinese people did believe that China (中國, literally "middle kingdom") was the center (中) of the world. The invasion of European powers shattered the dream. Many Chinese abandoned the ethnocentrism and turned to be self-hatred or become white men's ass-kissers. This history indicated Chinese ethnocentrism was real. Therefore, it deserves a responsible and well-researched article. To me, this is not something to be ashamed of. If this article is finally kept, I'll remove all current material and do a better version of it. I don't care about the arguments over ther with "Jewish ethnocentrism". Censorship is not my thing. -- Toytoy 12:35, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I made a redirect to chinese nationalism but it was reverted by jacquerie. Perhaps we can add a segment of sinocentrism on that page. As of right now, this article has nothing exceptionally chinese, and the points can be said for just about any ethnicity. Wareware 00:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 23:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Toytoy makes a valid argument, and it was one I was going to make on the "Jewish ethnocentrism" argument: There is a valid and well-documented part of Chinese civilization that is directly tied to the idea that China is the intellectual and cultural center of the world (which at one time was probably true, but that notwithstanding...) That said, my vote for this article is still "Delete", because this article is devoid of unique content. Toytoy's point should be considered, and I think such an article would be quite informative. Unlike Jewish ethnocentrism, which is an external (to Judaism) construct invented and used by anti-Semites to ridicule and delegitimize Jews, "Sinocentrism" is a native Chinese concept, indeed one that has played (and continues to play) a very important rôle in Chinese culture. TShilo12 00:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Chinese ethnocentrism is real and an important concept. Megan1967 01:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. (No consensus: Keep 9 / Delete 11) -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in the United States[edit]

The start of a list of high schools, it is actually a list of state-level lists, which I'm also proposing for deletion. This is clearly what categories are for. --BM 19:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with BM for this one, categories are enough. --Deathphoenix 19:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as well as all the sub-lists. Categories list only articles that exist, while page can show those that don't. And since there seems to be a disagreement on whether individual high schools should have articles, this list may be all they get. sjorford:// 22:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, though preferably someone should check the schools have been categorised first; an article on "Education in the United States of America" would be welcome Education in the United States exists however, that page can even list schools (which aren't listed on similar articles related to specific states) if appropriate and where a school requires an article but doesn't have one it can be listed on requested articles why not just merge if we're going to keep Mozzerati 22:15, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC) (updated 20:31, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC))
  • Delete, as well as all sub-lists. There are around 17000 schools in the US, as quoted somewhere above. The page would be impossible, even split to sub-pages by state. Catagories do a much better job here. humblefool® 23:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I prefer categories, but it isn't a question of having one or the other. Philip 02:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this and the subpages, but move to List of high schools in the United States, and also rename the subpages to list of... - SimonP 03:27, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not limited in size as are other encyclopediae; it would be wonderful if a user could (eventually) come to Wikipedia and learn about nearly every high school. I'm agnostic as to the categorization issues.Zantastik 07:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are lists of prisons, universities, an god knows what on Wikipedia. There's no reason for deletion. (Note: There are many High Schools that are proposed for deletion also) Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Categories are a (relatively) new feature and the idea is to get rid of most lists and use categories instead. This deletion of lists should make maintainance easier, which is to say the reason to get rid of lists is because if we have them the same work has to be done twice in different ways. This has nothing to do with the disagreement about whether to keep school articles or not. The lists of, universities and, prisons and gods should probably go too..
  • Delete. Worthless unless complete; far, far too long if complete. —Korath (Talk) 13:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as SimonP suggested. bbx 17:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I must respectfully disagree with Zantastik. There just isn't anything worth learning about most high schools. On the topic of U.S. high schools, one might find various aggregate statistics useful, but a complete list is just overwhelming. The information on most high schools most properly belongs in an 'Education' section in their parent community's article (or in a related 'Education in Springfield' article.) Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. --TenOfAllTrades 17:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable lists. We have categories for this kind of thing. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki is no paper, schools are encyclopedic. --ShaunMacPherson 18:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions on this page by individuals that obviously are not considering merits and just voting on preconceived notions. Deleting this page has nothing to do with inclusion versus deletion. One can vote to delete this page and still safely vote to include every school in the country without fear of being called a hypocrite. Back in the dark ages of wikipedia, it was necessary to maintain lists because this was the best way to group similar information. Now, we have the category, which does a much better job. I am against including every school, but if schools are all to be kept, I would not object to categorizing them in a variety of ways, but categories are the answer, not unweildly and unmaintainable lists. I feel that some people are voting here because they see the word "school" in the header and stop their rational analysis at that point. Indrian 19:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bah, keep it. Unless Wikipedia is running out of disk space. In that case then, delete. —RaD Man (talk) 22:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it, but could someone fix it? For some weird reason, the article is part of Category:High schools in Illinois.
  • Delete. Use a category. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use category instead. Noisy | Talk 10:00, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The existing category replaces this.--BaronLarf 23:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The debate rages on. For what it is worth, I tried this with the List of Manitoba School Divisions by first listing each of the school boards, then an alphabetical list of schools in each division. Two words: 1)In, 2)Sane. I hit the 32k wall early. Categories are the way to go with this I think. I created the category incorporating the original division list (which is complete and accurate) and have been removing them from the list as articles are created. A project like every school in the states being listed is just crazy IMO. Creating categories on boards/districts/divisions or whatever term they use in the states seems like a better way to go. Placing each of the 17,000 public schools in one list makes it exceedingly difficult to find any or even a group of them. Categories just make more sense as a way to tackle this, I think. Weaponofmassinstruction 05:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know why some people are arguing about deleting lists of schools. This article is a list of lists. Such a thing is plainly better done with the category mechanism, irrespective of how schools are handled. The advantage that lists have over categories is that lists can contain redlinks. A redlink in a list of lists simply makes no sense. Delete in favour of categorizing the individual lists into Category:Lists of schools. Uncle G 12:34, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Delete 10 / Keep 7 -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in California[edit]

A series of similar lists, all being proposed for deletion at this time. This is what categories are for. --BM 19:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete duplicate of Category:High schools in California. --Deathphoenix 19:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, though preferably someone should check the schools have been categorised first; an article on "Education in California" would be welcome however Mozzerati 22:10, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Keep' see above Philip 02:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are lists of prisons, universities, an god knows what on Wikipedia. There's no reason for deletion. (Note: There are many High Schools that are proposed for deletion also) Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
      • There are 1,006 high schools in California; That's a pretty obvious reason to me. And last time I checked, the numbers of universities and prisons in the Golden State were nowhere near that high and unwieldy, so those seem pretty safe to me. --Calton 12:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what Categories are for. --Calton 12:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worthless unless complete; far too long if complete. —Korath (Talk) 13:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lists are good for things that are not very notable and hard to create keepable articles about. bbx 17:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My comments are the same as in the current VfD on High schools in Connecticut.
  • Keep Wiki is no paper, schools are encyclopedic. --ShaunMacPherson 18:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The problem with using a form vote is that you tend to look silly when you use it in a strange place. This is not a vote for deletion for a school, but for a list that would be unwieldly if ever completed. Deleting this list in no way implies that schools are not encyclopedic so your objection seems odd. This is a debate over how to organize information on wikipedia and not a debate on whether schools are encyclopedic. It makes me wonder if you are really paying attention or just slapping this form explanation on whenever you see the word "school" on vfd. Indrian 19:13, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is what categories are for. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate of a category and requires much more maintenance. Ashibaka tlk 21:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are categories for a reason. Carrp | Talk 18:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use a category. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't be ridiculous. LeeJacksonKing 15:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As per the lengthy reasoning given in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools in Connecticut: Move to the correct List of high schools in X form, Keep with the cautions that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and Wikipedia is not a directory, and send to Cleanup for all but one of the articles which do not meet the standard of ("List of") High schools in Connecticut and simply do not contain enough data to meet the purpose of lists. Uncle G 13:42, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Plenty of room for expansion. GRider\talk 18:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 8 delete, 4 keep. dbenbenn | talk 14:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in Illinois[edit]

One in a series. This is what categories are for. --BM 19:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a duplicate of Category:High schools in Illinois. --Deathphoenix 19:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A list isn't a duplicate of a category, it is an alternative system, and it is policy that multiple systems are valued. Philip 02:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, though preferably someone should check the schools have been categorised first; an article on "Education in Illinois" would be welcome however Mozzerati 22:10, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worthless unless complete; far too long if complete. —Korath (Talk) 13:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My comments are the same as in the current VfD on High schools in Connecticut. (Forget to sign previously) --BM 01:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki is no paper, schools are encyclopedic. --ShaunMacPherson 18:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The problem with using a form vote is that you tend to look silly when you use it in a strange place. This is not a vote for deletion for a school, but for a list that would be unwieldly if ever completed. Deleting this list in no way implies that schools are not encyclopedic so your objection seems odd. This is a debate over how to organize information on wikipedia and not a debate on whether schools are encyclopedic. It makes me wonder if you are really paying attention or just slapping this form explanation on whenever you see the word "school" on vfd. Indrian 19:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is what categories are for. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate of a category and requires much more maintenance. Ashibaka tlk 21:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use a category. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As per the lengthy reasoning given in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools in Connecticut: Move to the correct List of high schools in X form, Keep with the cautions that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and Wikipedia is not a directory, and send to Cleanup for all but one of the articles which do not meet the standard of ("List of") High schools in Connecticut and simply do not contain enough data to meet the purpose of lists. Uncle G 13:41, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 15:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat[edit]

Another article with a weird POV title created by a Shi'a apologist apparently to post anti-Sunni Shi'a polemics OneGuy 19:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep - OneGuy is on a rampage deleting everything i do and write.

The Topic is important, it reflects one major muslims, Alis, feelings toward a important event. It is to long to fitt in a biograpy and since its a "hot" topic, it needs ample referense to prove its validity, something i have included. If OneGuy's problem is that he thinks its not NPOV, then he should address it, preferably with proof, not voting for deletion only because it dosent suite his image of what Ali felt and did. In short: Ali DID opposed Abu Bakr, as is evident in authentic Sunni sources i quoted and its important for understanding the difrent event that emerged from that moment. If OneGuy has a problem with the title, i would have no problem renaming it to "What Ali sought of the first Kalif" or somthing similar.

I challenge OneGuy to bring ONE hadith that shows that Ali supported Abu Bakrs nomination for Khilafa. (unsigned comment by Striver)

The title of the article is not neutral "Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat." You moved your Shi'a POV even to the title. The title must be neutral OneGuy 03:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
X opposes Y isn't necessarily non-NPOV. Someone could easily write a neutral and factual article about, e.g., the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control. It's an historical fact that opposition over who would lead the Islamic Caliphate lead to the Shia–Sunni split, isn't it? J’raxis 06:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
If Sunnis dispute that Ali opposed Abu Bakr, then of course the title is POV. As far as I know, Sunnis accept that Ali did initially oppose Abu Bakr for a short period but then accepted him as a Caliph after that. To make an article out of that is clearly nonsensical. And what's with quoting all these hadith on this minor point? The fact that Ali initially opposed but then accepted Abu Bakr can be written in one line into Abu Bakr's article without cutting and pasting all these hadith. Consider changing your vote after I explained the problems now OneGuy 07:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's POV or original research or both, written in a non-encyclopedic style. RSpeer 00:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is poorly written and un-encyclopaedic. Needs NPOV if it stays. Megan1967 00:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OneGuy 02:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If this was written in more historic terms, that would probably fall under an Islamic history article, but I doubt it warrants its own article from what I remember of my Mid-East history. ScottM 03:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I suppose it needs work, it seems like a good start. Everyking 05:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep iff it can be expanded to be worth its own article, not to mention cleaned up and NPOVed. As it stands it seems as if it belongs as a section on a larger article about Ali, Abu Bakr, or Shia Islam. Striver's intent to create the page as an anti-Sunni polemic doesn't preclude its being transformed into a good article; remember the Sollog affair? The page really ought to be moved to something like Ali's Opposition to Abu Bakr or ...Abu Bakr's Caliphate also. J’raxis 06:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
  • Don't Shi'ites have a name for the schism? (no vote) Gazpacho 10:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge any useful information into article on one of the participants. Rmhermen 16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Beyond NPOV problems, does this really need an encyclopedia entry? In its current form it is contextless nonsense. Katefan0 19:58, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Have to agree with Katefan0. The article may or may not have a point but as it stands it is totally out of context. Surely, at the very least, it needs re-writing to be included under a more general heading regarding Abu Bakr and the Calpihate? --Marcus22 11:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an article, agenda promotion of some kind. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Its interesting

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 8 clear "delete" votes, 4 clear "keep" votes and one "move". Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article is kept for now. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in New Jersey[edit]

One in a series. This is what categories are for. --BM 19:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 3 clear "keep" votes and one "move". Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article is kept for now. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools in Pennsylvania[edit]

One in a series. This is what categories are for. --BM 19:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • delete; an article on "Education in Pennsylvania" would be welcome however Mozzerati 21:53, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are lists of prisons, universities, an god knows what on Wikipedia. There's no reason for deletion. (Note: There are many High Schools that are proposed for deletion also) Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Delete. Worthless unless complete; far too long if complete. —Korath (Talk) 13:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lists are good for things that are not very notable and hard to create keepable articles about. bbx 17:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My comments are the same as in the current VfD on High schools in Connecticut. If Bbx is right that these lists are a way to circumvent VfD decisions to delete articles about non-notable high schools, that is all the more reason not to have these lists. --BM
  • Delete unmaintainable lists. As pointed out, we have categories for this. Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unwieldly and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Even if all schools are determined at some point to be notable, a better system than this would be needed to manage the information. Indrian 19:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are categories for a reason. Carrp | Talk 18:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use a category. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As per the lengthy reasoning given in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools in Connecticut: Move to the correct List of high schools in X form, Keep with the cautions that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and Wikipedia is not a directory, and send to Cleanup for all but one of the articles which do not meet the standard of ("List of") High schools in Connecticut and simply do not contain enough data to meet the purpose of lists. Uncle G 13:41, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 22:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brandi Engel[edit]

"actress" with one role in an unreleased film. Gained some very limited fame by appearing on IMDb's 'Fresh Faces'. Her career has the potential to take off, but it hasn't yet. Xezbeth 19:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • comment; resume here Mozzerati 22:05, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough - only 1 movie to date. Megan1967 00:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems she's done more theather work than everything else. Calling her a film actress is probably factually incorrect. I'd be happy to keep the article, but in it's current form it's far from informative. Also, the film she's starred in has yet to be released. Abstain. Mgm|(talk) 09:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pages like this are worse than nothing. Delete. -R. fiend 01:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an article, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No information there. The question is not whether she deserves an article, but whether this is an encyclopedia article. Actually, this should be a candidate for "speedy deletion". Aleph4 12:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nihat Ozsahin[edit]

Vanity substub in broken English. —Korath (Talk) 20:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • notable for having only three entries on google [3] (including a wikipedia clone)... which is less than the average for a random string of the same length.. so we need this arti.... delete Mozzerati 22:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Actually I think it is good that people believe they are unique and have good self-esteem. This improves character provided it doesn't go over the top. So I really think WP could use more of this. The world has enough sad people! We should encourage those who feel good about themselves! Er.. as for this article, Delete. Inter 22:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Challenges facing email[edit]

This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's kind of an essay or outline, flush with opinion, conversational tone (addressing the reader as "you"), and how-to or advice.

What facts it does present are redundant with encyclopedia articles such as Electronic mail, E-mail spam, and DNSBL. These facts are better presented in those articles, so further merging is not necessary.

This article is also only linked (as a "related topic") from one article -- E-mail spam, mentioned above. --FOo 20:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, This has a strong essay/original research whiff to it. Inter 22:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: essay, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 00:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of things to do in an elevator[edit]

Chain-letter e-mail joke, possibly a copyvio, unencyclopedic. -- Curps 20:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This should be speedied, it's already been VfD'ed under a different name. It was called 50 things to do in an elevator . [4] Kappa 21:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. It's now speedied. -- Curps 22:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adam Green (Politician)[edit]

According to the article, this 18 yr old is a prominent member of the British Conservative Party. The article doesn't specify his role and I can't seem to find anything by Googling. --Lee Hunter 21:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I get a deja vu here. We have discussed something like this before with politicians and commiteemembers. Inter 22:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a real instance of vanity. Inability to spell betrays the dubious nature of the claim to be a "prominent" anything - except possibly a prominent example of a poorly educated British teenager writing articles on Wikipedia. Delete. --Centauri 23:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and go through anon user special contributions and delete related junk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I've removed the mentions of Adam Green from November 21 and Conservative Party (UK) --Lee Hunter 01:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are very few prominent members of the Tory Party these days. Adam Green is definitely not one of them! --Marcus22 11:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 00:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Farmer with shotgun[edit]

Non-notable minor character. Sc147 23:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable. No potential for becoming encyclopedic. Johntex 23:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - bad English, only thing that links there are delete pages...go figure. And perhaps sb should go over the creators contributions... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think User:TigerShark was putting a {{delete}} notice on it just as it got speedy deleted by User:Neutrality. He's not the original creator. -- Curps 01:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dragonball Z fancruft: just a poorly written description of a minor scene in DBZ. — Gwalla | Talk 00:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, minor fictious character, article as it is written is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Little About Everything[edit]

Non-notable blog. Alexa rank is 2,873,985; google for "A Little About Everything" (with quotes) doesn't find this until the third page. Orphaned article. — Gwalla | Talk 00:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable blog. --Deathphoenix 05:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable RJFJR 20:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_2&oldid=1142222433"