Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 16

April 16

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mackensen (talk) 05:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jenin massacre

A clear POV fork of Battle of Jenin 2002 -- the creator created the current fork from the redirect left behind after the material had been moved. Redirect back to Battle of Jenin 2002 -- and lock it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork. Gamaliel 01:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork indeed, nothing really to merge either. gren 03:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. No merge. It doesn't hurt to redirect. This name is definatly searchable. Jeltz talk 14:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Truns out that the origin of this article is no fork. This seems to be the rogininal location for the article. Somebody just decided to write a POV-rant on one of the redirects to the Battle of Jenin 2002 article. Jeltz talk 14:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect; POV fork but a searchable term that, deserved or not, is widely used for the events. There's nothing new in the present version or the history as of this time to merge, so delete before redirecting; POV forks suck. Samaritan 15:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect since the term-though POV-is widely used. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Lol. I wrote this section and I'm certainly not Israeli bias. Read Talk:Battle of Jenin 2002 for complete debate. Basically I felt labeling the Battle of Jenin 2002 as a hoax was unfair (it was in the category hoax), but due to an unmoving opposition I had to compromise in making it clear that only the Massacre was the hoax. If you look at the battle articles's history page[1], I had a big go at evening up the article as it was very pro-Israeli, but felt that removing the hoax category might be going against consensus so used talk pages.

Thus my personal preference is redirect and make sure there is no hoax tag in either article, but... oh well you can read the debate. In the talk page's history[2] is a RFC I prepared but decided against using believing it would go nowhere. In summary I did at least try at keeping it relatively non-POV. -- Tomhab 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I've padded out the stub to make it clear what it's all about. I do feel its kind of futile though. I would be quite interested if the article was padded out to include the entire media reaction so it can be kept separate to the battle article. -- Tomhab 11:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. known term. Mikkalai 01:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but make encyclopedic. I reworded and expanded it a little. We need this article to indicate that the allegation of a massacre was a hoax. If it is possible to do via redirect, that would be my 2nd choice. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We need this article to indicate that the allegation of a massacre was a hoax. With all due respect, no we don't. We need to put that information in the existing article on the incident. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If there is a way to categorize a redir as Category:Hoaxes, then redir works for me. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Battle of Jenin 2002. Megan1967 10:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Battle of Jenin 2002 which already covers allegations of a massacre. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Battle of Jenin 2002 is most reasonable.IZAK 04:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Battle of Jenin 2002. The massacre hoax is an aspect of the larger historical event. -- 8^D ^gab 20:54, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 01:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Lectiodifficilior 04:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Battle of Jenin 2002. Seems the sensible thing to do. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect --Briangotts 20:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Covell

Unforunately, this is just another example of vanity on Wikipedia. Unless policy dictates that each of the 6 billion (and more) people of this earth get his or her own article, I don't see why he should. 69.158.8.86 00:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. SeventyThree 18:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.Mikkalai 01:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. moink 01:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity --Briangotts 20:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:01, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Literary movements

This article is extremely limited, and duplicates the Category unnecessarily, creating confusion and dismay in well-meaning Wikipedians. It need not exist, if you see my meaning, and so I think it wants Deletion. Dave1898 00:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I don't see Category:Literary movements explaining what any of them are. Kappa 00:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to List of Literary Movements Klonimus 02:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is essentially a list ATM, concur with Klonimus: Rename as List of literary movements. Megan1967 03:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm worried. I actually agree with Klonimus on something. Move to List of literary movements. (note capitalization). RickK 06:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Move per RickK's (correct) capitalization. An annotated list could be quite helpful on this topic. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Seen from that point of view, the article considered as an annotated list (rather than a self-contained attempt at description and analysis) is certainly salvageable. Pardon me--I'm relatively new at Wikipedia, and don't always see these possibilities. Once the five days is up, then, I shall plan to edit a List of literary movements page, if no one else does so first. I do think that the article as it stands is extremely limited in scope, treating as it does only movements of the 20th century, and then only movements either European or popularized in Europe; if deletion is not called for I do think the list will need at least to wear a stub template for quite a while. Dave1898 11:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic is important but current article makes more harm than help. Someone more knowledgeable will create something better in the future, hopefully. Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ellipsis media

A commercial advertisement - keeps referring to "we" when talking about the company. 220.253.116.207 10:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; I concur with the anon. At least there's no external link. (This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution.) —Korath (Talk) 23:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the 'we' references clearly demonstrate this is marketing fluff. Mindmatrix 01:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement. --DuKot 02:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Marketing cruft. jni 15:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. SeventyThree 00:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Ad. Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ads aren't speedyable, since there's a sizeable minority that insists they can be salvaged into encyclopedia articles. (In reality, of course, almost none are, and this just encourages more spam. Thanks, folks!) —Korath (Talk) 10:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction

Delete. Right now it's just a link to a review. Could be made into an acceptable article. Stolethis 03:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has already been expanded, and is a notable game. Xezbeth 06:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Kappa 13:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. SeventyThree 00:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. HunterAmor 00:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thunderbrand 20:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though, admittedly, I did some of the recent expansions to it. If I didn't think this game was an impressive achievement, I likely wouldn't have bothered. :) David Matchen 14:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - No Brainer. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I started the article, and mercinares IS a noteable game that deserves a page. it does, however, need some plot details, or weapons, things like that. fluke 9:15 pm , Apr 21, EST

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:04, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

T'plana'hath

it can be merged with Vulcan (Star Trek) Melaen 21:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (it can also be spelled backwards, but why should it be done?) 62.46.117.225 13:18, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL
• There are three separate references to T'plana'hath in Star Trek, over two films and a TV series, set in three eras. That seems like a significant, canonical character to me. Do not delete. KingOfAllPaperboys
• It's also a significant ship to make first contact with humans. Do not delete. Commander 17:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 23:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep canonical things from fiction. Kappa 01:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 01:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 03:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 13:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (keeping redirect) as Melaen suggested. King and Commander above gave reasons for notability within this very popular fiction, but WP:FICT guidelines make this a merge rather than keep, and it's not trivial enough to delete. Barno 15:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in it's own right. can, and should, be expanded. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teaching grammar

Fontgirl marked this vfd on January 29, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. My vote is delete; it's a semi-coherent, first-person essay unrelated to its title. —Korath (Talk) 00:08, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• As per Korath. If not rewritten to be about its subject, Delete; but let the redlinks stand. Uncle G 01:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or write an article, there's not enough there for a rewrite. SeventyThree 00:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 01:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
• Super speeedy delete. How did this got so far? Pavel Vozenilek 02:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 05:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Great Filter

This is a vanity page for one of the too simple theories of an obscure academic. There are many detailed, well thought out theories on this interesting topic --AlainV 18:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Even though the theories does not reveal the secret of God's nature, it doesn't mean it don't belong in the free encyclopedia. I recently heard of this theory, and I looked it up here, and here it was. Didn't make me a physics major, but I appreciated it. ---Drange

• Delete. --AlainV 18:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Note: I wrote the entry; I did however not write what AlainV deem a simple theory of an obscure academic. This is now declared by the opponent a Vanity Page. In the entry for such it states: A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. Note also that a link to this alleged obscure academicicians web page is already listed on the entry for Fermi Paradox. Unfortunately searching on Wikipedia for The Great Filter yielded no entry (Google web and group searches do) and that was the reason I wrote this entry. If, as is claimed, there are many detailed, well thought out theories on this interesting topic I would be genuinely interested to see them.

Moreover, the author of this alleged too simple theory Robin Hanson does also have an entry, in spite of his status as an obscure academic. While I am not him (nor have I contacted him) I would also like a far more specific reason for his alleged obscurity than one sentence. His [page] does not like that of a charlatan, and numerous mainstream articles are listed. My considered view is therefore to keep this entry. 80.212.11.201 20:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have taken the trouble of reading Hanson's Web page on his "great" filter and it does not explain anything, or bring anything new to the debate. It is just a compendium of some other views on this. Hanson is known for his contributions in other fields, but not in this one. There are many well thought out theories around Dyson's Dyson sphere and even a relatively lighter idea like Bradbury's Matrioshka Brain is more known and developed than Hanson's Web page on "The great filter. In fact the Wikipedia article on the Fermi Paradox sums things up much better than Hanson's pages on the Web. --AlainV 02:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that the argument is transformed from one of "a simple theory of an obscure academic" into "just a compendium of some other views on this" I move to dismiss the proposal for deletion as the basis was clearly poorly understood or researched. Moreover "The Great Filter" is a known expression (ref earlier notes on Google). And while the entry on Fermi Paradox does sum things up more briefly, The Great Filter theory is more complete. Were one to take even more "trouble" in reading it one would also see original contributions (see for instance chapters starting with "Reconsidering " as well as "Technical Appendix"). The Great Filter states that thye filtering can be prior to our stage in development but also later on. Original research listing and quoting from previous work is not unusual, to the best of my knowledge there us only one serious exception, that of Louis-Victor de Broglie on his paper on Wave-particle duality. 80.212.51.83 13:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I see no valid reason for deletion.
  • Comment by 12.151.32.25, the same IP was also responsible for a series of hoax articles on the same day. Average Earthman 09:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes that this is a theory that exists beyond the writing of one author. Gamaliel 01:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Fermi paradox. Shimmin 01:28, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or at the very least merge and redirect as suggested by Shimmin. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect as Shimmin. It will fit nicely with the other proposed explanations listed at Fermi paradox. FreplySpang (talk) 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Merge with Fermi paradox. Megan1967 03:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Fermi paradox. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect.Mikkalai 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before concluding a merge, note that The Great Filter covers the development (and/or prevention) of civilisations, aliens as well as our; while the Fermi Paradox covers why an alien civilisation, if it exists, has not contacted us. Thus there is a difference in scope. One could of course merge these but then also Drake Equation for completeness, at which point it gets rather big. (I have already voted for keep previously) 85.164.81.159 21:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Drake equation and the Fermi paradox are interlinked subjects, but one does not subsume the other. All ("all"? ...well, yes) the Great Filter does is explore one of the possible explanations for the Paradox in slightly greater detail. Merge, redirect, bingo. DS 13:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Herbfarm

Is this blatant publicity?--Noogz 04:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:21, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, various claims to notability like #15 restaurant in America according to Gourmet magazine. Kappa 01:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable restaurant. AAA 5 Diamonds, is very notable. Klonimus 02:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Post-Larval Must Be Very Cautious in Communicating with Larval Humans

Howabout1 marked this vfd on April 11, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:21, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. RickK 06:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Odd. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Timothy Leary. -Sean Curtin 23:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial. -- Dcfleck 13:31, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Huh? A2Kafir 00:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Prince of Persia.. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Prince of Persia

• Delete or Merge. Largely duplicative of material in Prince of Persia, the remainder is not noteworthy. Briangotts 01:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Prince of Persia Bluemoose 10:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prince of Persia --Neigel von Teighen 00:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Prince of Persia as suggested by Neigel von Teighen --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redir to Prince of Persia as suggested BigFatDave 02:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, this is an obvious search string. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Should be done automatically, w/o vfd. Pavel Vozenilek 02:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - it's a rather silly little piece. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and delete the material. Duplicative. --maru 23:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Qudrant Gate

• This page is no notable content. Vanity commercial page. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable DDerby 17:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable --Randolph 17:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the title is misspelled and the pub is not notable. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Local pubs aren't notable on their own. Mine sure isn't. delete BigFatDave 02:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, not notable. Megan1967 03:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be a type of revenge by a DJ on his former employer. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Raging Hormones

Delete. Vanity. --Briangotts 18:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, obvious band vanity. Megan1967 03:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete, as Megan1976. Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Megan1976 stated. Linuxbeak 14:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, non-notable. Agree w/ Megan1967 --maru 00:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Recondites

Mike1971inter marked this vfd on January 27, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. My vote is delete; local tours and "planning to release a full length album" don't meet WP:NMG. —Korath (Talk) 00:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. --Neigel von Teighen 00:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Their record label isn't impressive either: total of 1 EP. Wipe 00:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable enough yet. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe notable in future, no reason to delete Guyana 00:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: They are a real band, with a record of some sort. --maru 00:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Skywalker Tour

Briangotts marked this vfd on March 30, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-worthy stub. --Neigel von Teighen 00:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Very hard to read/understand as it is currently written and does not seem to be talking about anything notable. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This was from the "Star Wars Technical Journal," which I'm not sure effectively made it as canon. Anyway, delete, and perhaps add a few notes to other articles. It can be added into Starwarswiki, but I think it'd be easier to create it from scratch than clean this up.-LtNOWIS 03:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Star Wars. Firebug 05:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Firebug's proposed redirect makes no sense. RickK 06:31, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge w/ Tatooine article --maru 00:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to wikisource. Mackensen (talk) 05:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Unreality of Time

This does not look like an encycopledia article to me. It seems to be the full text of a paper published in 1908. Perhaps it should be on Wikisource?? Aleph4 23:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be on WP:CP. Check that first. Uncle G 05:32, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Since this is from 1908, it's not a copyright problem. Transwiki to Wikisource. RickK 06:32, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikisource. Megan1967 10:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. A short spin through Word made the thing actually readable. -- Kizor 23:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. However, this is a very important article in the history of the philosophy of time and I would suggest that, after transfer, this heading is turned into a stub with a link to wikisource. I have some notes somewhere that summarise the article (if I can find them!).Loxley 11:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a link in the relevant article? -- Kizor 23:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vacant

Vanity page. See also RRGB. Junjk 03:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks like they haven't released anything yet [3], and I don't think the other bands they were in ("ghost parade", "the gentry") were particularly sucessful either. Kappa 11:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Fawcett5 23:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be established. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hardly noteworthy. Strikes as vanity. --Durin 05:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (IP votes are not counted.). - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The jump

LockeShocke marked this vfd on March 28, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - As the writer of this article, it is notworthy because "The Jump" launched the BMX career of Josh Barone, one of the most promising BMX riders to come out of Western Pennsylvania before his tragic death in 1986.
  • The above from 151.201.136.93; his only edits are to another vfd debate, a vanity article which I'm about to vfd, and this article. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I've heard about this.
  • The above from 67.163.244.204; it's his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Yeah, that jump was sweet.
  • The above from 24.193.49.25; it's his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pieces of plywood are not encyclopedic. FreplySpang (talk) 00:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
• del After two hours the school's custodian dismantled the jump. All agreed it was totally rad. It may have been rad in '87, but it's a generic bike jump now. Any notable content should be tossed into Josh Barone's article, assuming Josh Barone is notable. (I have no idea on that subject) BigFatDave 02:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 03:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If not, do we then allow all skateboard parks and any other makeshift ramps people make? This is trivial. --Durin 05:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is both unnotable and unencyclopedic. ("Totally rad"? Does anyone actually talk like that any more?) Firebug 05:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And yes, my 12-year old brother. Although half the time I think he's being ironic. Meelar (talk) 20:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial vanity. Trivanity? RickK 06:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Trivanity! Yes, let's neologism it, LOL. Delete. Radiant_* 13:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Delete because it's non-notable, non-encyclopedic and vanity, strong because of all the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 12:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn bullshit. LevelCheck 20:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial vanity. Hahah! The writer of the article said "notworthy"! Very funny typo. Nestea 20:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worthy of an article. Tony Jin | (talk) 23:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• "Keep". All of the sock puppets saying to delete this thing, that's a bunch of BS. If you were there, you would have though it was sweet.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Fionavar Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of Fionavar

• Merge with Fionavar. Aleph4 12:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and expand. 62.74.9.146 12:19, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Fionavar. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge to Fionavar, that article already has sections on geography, population, etc. That's where a timeline belongs. BigFatDave 02:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Fionavar. Megan1967 03:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom Carberry

Vanity article Jonharman 09:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. "Tom Carberry"+"actor" gives single-digit number of google hits. Mikkalai 01:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, Vanity. -- Mwanner 14:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tommy DiDario

Non-notable vanity page. 69.162.0.213 23:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, concurring with the anon. (This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution.) —Korath (Talk) 00:47, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "DiDario was a full-blown sex symbol by the middle of his junior year. DiDario performed a dance for the Teen Arts Festival and shocked audiences with his new, sexual personality." Oh my. Delete vanity. Samaritan 15:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwikied to wikibooks and consensus to delete. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trigonometry in simple terms

Nice article, but not what we're about. Transwikify to Wikibooks? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I like the idea -- the original Trigonometry article is getting weighed down with too many extra details. (If it does have to go, perhaps http://simple.wikipedia.org/ would be a good place for it to go to.) --DavidCary 22:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikibooks:Trigonometry has a big notice across the top of the page that currently reads:

  A word to potential contributors: This module is extremely bare-boned and in need of contributors. Edit this page!

• whilst Talk:Trigonometry in simple terms says:
  • This might be a candidate for Wikibooks. --Chessphoon 22:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah it is. But is there any way to move it there? If you could do so i would appreciate it.--Slicky 07:28, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• I sense a void to be filled, an article to fill it, and the agreement of several editors. I've tagged the article as Wikibooks. Uncle G 01:47, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• seems like a good start, transwiki to wikibooks is my vote too. BigFatDave 02:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wikibooks. Megan1967 03:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article is now living at Wikibooks:Trigonometry:In simple terms as a chapter under Wikibooks:Trigonometry. My vote is now Delete. Uncle G 15:32, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tyler Yarnell

Wwjdd marked this vfd on March 26, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The only thing remotely notable is the book. All else is vanity. Can anyone track how it sold and if it's even widely available? Mgm|^(talk) 15:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Tyler Yarnell does not exist on amazon. poor POV, non-notable--Delete --Combuchan 02:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imperial_Coalitionism

I realize this page has been around since December, and a number of editors have looked at it. But - 1. - a combined Google/Yahoo search netted a total of 5 (five!) hits, 4 of which are Wikipedia mirrors. This [4] appears to be the only independent site using this term, and it is an exact copy of the original Wikipedia article. 2. - Based on these results, I'm pretty certain that this term is some individual's neologism for the early Imperial Roman system of government. It seems to have no wider usage anywhere. 3. - not linked to by any other page on Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted as a result, but I'll be happy if someone can show me I'm wrong. -- Dcfleck 14:50, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. -- Mwanner 16:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: not entirely convinced that it's a neologism, although the evidence does point that way; if it is, then definitely delete. Avocado 16:59, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: entirely convinced that it's a neologism/original research. FreplySpang (talk) 20:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I want journal citations, or else this should be deleted as a neologism. Average Earthman 20:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tommy Gunn Kail

Vanity, bordering on nonsense. —Korath (Talk) 00:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mindmatrix 01:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Schoolkids, namely Odie, Gordo and D Saxe would make fun of him and push him around." So, alas, will VfD. Delete vanity. Samaritan 15:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reid Fitzgerald

Vanity. Delete. Revived 00:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no concrete claim to notability. Kappa 01:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reid: Keep fighting the system! Mindmatrix 01:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• These damned things should be speedyable. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shitnig

• Delete This article is a non-word, and it is vanity. I recommend it to be deleted.--Durin 01:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologisms with unknown meanings. Kappa 01:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Mindmatrix 01:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto. Kill it. Skybum 01:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I say we Shitnig this article, or failing that, delete it. BigFatDave 02:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Sjakkalle 09:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Tony Jin | (talk) 23:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, and redirect to Aeneid. —Xezbeth 06:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Valerus

• Delete This article is non-encyclopedic and vanity. --Durin 01:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "article" about someone's user name, already userfied. Kappa 01:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• that's 2 from this Will Todd fellow, and this one is a del too. BigFatDave 02:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Valerus is the name of a soldier loyal to Turnus in the Aeneid by Virgil. Maybe a redirect to the Aeneid? Megan1967 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Homo ovi sum, homines ovarum sunt, Valerus sum. Goo-goo-g'joob. Redirect. Haikupoet 23:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Son Goku(Dragon Ball AF)

The article is based upon a hoax as well as having not enough content to be in an article.

• Delete, trivial, cruft. Megan1967 03:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I wouldn't say that this is trivial fancruft. It's just nonsense. If there was any real content then it should go in a Dragon Ball AF article. Jeltz talk 14:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Goku continues his training with all of the Dragon Balls in his possesion." Oh wow, what an article. Delete. Nestea 20:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gruntface

An essay on the origin of some emoticons, delete--nixie 01:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-encyclopedic, original research, something. FreplySpang (talk) 02:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redir to emoticon BigFatDave 02:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neither I nor my friend Google have heard of this. Delete. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:35, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn. RickK 06:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sempa

Advertisement/vanity band page. Delete Demi ^T/_C 01:51, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Six guys from Berlin living their childhood dream"? ARGH! Delete it now. Chris talk back 22:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absynthe Magazine

Tagged as unencyclopedic, this article is about an alternate student paper for a college campus. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Dsmdgold 01:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• average circulation of 1000 copies ... sounds NN to me. del BigFatDave 02:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 04:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Trent University. --Spinboy 00:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Trent University. Samaritan 15:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:09, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

BIPPI

Tagged as unencyclopedic, this article looks more like an ad for a political interest group. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• del NN BigFatDave 02:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 23:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:12, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Catherine Matthews

Tagged as unencyclopedic, there is nothing here that is significant about this person. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If she really went on an international lecture tour there is, but this is almost certainly a hoax. Only relevant Google hits for "Catherine Matthews" and suffrage, suffragette or lecture is Wikipedia. Delete. Samaritan 15:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's from a vandal IP too. Samaritan 15:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "least famous but most accomplished women of all time" = unverifiable. FreplySpang (talk) 20:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:09, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Citywide Communications, Inc

Just an ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• del ad BigFatDave 02:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Mindmatrix 14:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ads. Like this one. Samaritan 16:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Webcruft, alexa rank 144 080, un-encyclopedic, delete--nixie 02:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• NN, and just plain silly. delete BigFatDave 02:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Promo by whom? The website hasn't been updated for years. --Aranae 04:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • The entire article discusses the website, whether it be updated or not the language of it is what I would regard as "promotional". Megan1967 07:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Seanbaby. It shouldn't be a seperate article not that notable but it is popular with the video game fans community. --Anonymous Cow 03:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable humor site. If the link to Seanbaby can be confirmed, then merge. Klonimus 07:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the same phone number is the whois contact for this site and seanbaby.com. Merge. Samaritan 16:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This website had quite a following, spawned imitators, and was written up in a few major media outlets. It also led to a number of discussions about intellectual property on the web, the security of posting personal photos publicly, and the legal responsibility of hosting companies for content on their servers. It's as noteworthy as just about anything else in Category:Comedy websites except for the huge sites like the onion. This site was big and still has some followers. Why don't we delete every article about TV shows that only lasted a few years while we're at it? What's more noteworthy than large following, historical significance, discussion spawning, and recognized by big media? --Aranae 04:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• KeeptodayKeeptomorrowKeepforever!!! This young man shall be Prime Minister of Mexico one day. Axeattack 05:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Mexico doesn't have a Prime Minister. This is a new User whose first edits were today. RickK 06:39, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete un-encyclopedic. Vegaswikian 05:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lupin 06:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RickK 06:39, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. How come I find myself suddenly agreeing with RickK on VfD-issues? Sjakkalle 09:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep once-notable humor site. Kappa 12:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I just updated the site in hopes of convincing people to switch their votes to keep. --Aranae 18:11, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Mikkalai 01:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notorious website. The "Reviews and references" provides more than enough evidence of notability. Gamaliel 06:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--pretty good article, and the mentions in major media and such push it over the bar for me. Meelar (talk) 16:39, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep anyone who wants this deleted is made of ham. ShadowyCabal
• Keep, looks like notable. Grue 19:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems somewhat notable to me. — flamingspinach | (talk) 01:45, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Keep, but article can be improved jiy 08:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Lots of humor sites on the web anyway, and WP:WIN a web guide. Radiant_* 13:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very notable site.--Badlydrawnjeff 20:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. At one point, a pretty well-known humor site. Thunderbunny 22:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable at all. Save the bandwith. Mcfly85 06:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with and redirect to Seanbaby. DS 13:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:09, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lady Chadwick

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wacko Woods, indeed. FreplySpang (talk) 02:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, "film first released in the USA on December 31, 2006" says it all. -- Mwanner 02:34, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Website does not appear to be working. Megan1967 03:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 14:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Return-to-zero, inverted

Either completely imagined by me, or else so trivial that it shouldn't be included. There are multiple definitions for this, and I don't think anyone really uses it anyway - Omegatron 02:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I have no idea what to do with this, but isn't the article's creator requesting deletion a criteria for a speedy? BigFatDave 02:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Ok. I'm an admin now. Can I do it myself? I just wanted to do all that "in the interests of transparency" stuff. - Omegatron 02:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

  Make it so. You'll feel better for it :) Grutness|^hello?

• Merge, with redirects, this, Return-to-zero, Non-return-to-zero and Non-return-to-zero, inverted into one article under a title such as Signal encodings. It is confusing rather than helpful to have them as separate articles. Note that they are recording standards, eg. mag tape, as well as transmission methods. -- RHaworth 06:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Merge, concur with RHaworth. Megan1967 07:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, but what is the definition of RZI? Also see line code for the all-encompassing article you want. - Omegatron 12:12, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as per User:RHaworth. --cesarb 01:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Return to Zero, according to that article, this candidate is incorrect anyway... StuartH 07:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Krystal Planet

Tagged as unencyclopedic, it looks like an ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vegaswikian 05:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: looks like multi-level marketing. Mindmatrix 14:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christa Worthington

Wikipedia is not a memorial, delete--nixie 02:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This was a major news story in U.S. Media today (April 15 2005). It was a national story when she was killed also. If Laci Peterson and Terri Schiavo belong in wikipedia this article surely does. --DuKot 03:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews but don't leave it in the main namespace of Wikipedia, her murder is not equivalent to the deaths Schiavo or Peterson (who's deaths were reported worldwide, and generated US legislation).--nixie 08:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not noteworthy. No insult intended, but prior to her murder she was a nobody. Her death may have been picked up as a news item by national media, but her death did not stir any public debate nor protests of any kind. The most that could be said of it is that it inspired someone to write a book (of unknown popularity). This is hardly encyclopedic. --Durin 05:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. -- Darwinek 08:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --ecb29 05:59, 16 Apr 2005
• Strong keep. Subject of this extensive New York magazine cover story in 2002. Accessories editor for Women's Wear Daily, acting Paris bureau chief for W, branched into antiques writing as a notable London-based freelancer, wrote a series of books published by Random House. "A nobody?" Just a 2005 Wikinews item? (By the way, we can't directly transwiki to Wikinews without checking how contributors licensed their edits: we're GFDL, Wikinews is public domain.) Samaritan 15:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not an encyclopaedia article about Christa Worthington. This is a news article about a man being arrested for her murder, summarising a CNN report of the same. Feel free to write an encyclopaedia article about the woman. But this is not that article, nor is it even the beginnings of such an article. Uncle G 16:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Seems notable enough based on Samaritan's research. android↔talk 15:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a news service. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia. Wikinews is the newspaper. And this article exactly fits the Wikinews definition of a "news summary" (as per Wikinews:Wikinews:Content guide) as it is a summary of a CNN report. DuKot, ecb29, and Darwinek: If you want to write news articles, please do so in the newspaper. It's a wiki, and you can log in and edit it as easily as you are logging in and editing here. You can log in and create Wikinews:Man arrested on charge of murdering Christa Worthington right now. I encourage you to do so. (Don't hang around here wasting effort trying to mis-place a news article into the encyclopaedia. By the time that the VFD process has finished, your news article will be too old for Wikinews, whereas right now is exactly when Wikinews wants an article like this. Don't forget to add the {{source}} template to your Wikinews article, for citing CNN as your source as you have done here. See Wikinews:Wikinews:Writing an article. And if someone comes along and writes an encyclopaedia biography of the woman you can even interwiki link it into the news article, just like the Wikinews reports on Wikinews:Category:Pope John Paul II interwiki linked to the encyclopaedia article about him.) There is nothing of encyclopaedic merit in this article. This is a news summary submitted to the wrong project. Delete. Uncle G 16:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • I haven't worked on this article, and I'm not interested in writing news--I just think, though, that it has some merit. Why destroy useful information?
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Angr/_comhrá 19:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. N-Man^talk 23:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete. wikinews. Mikkalai 01:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. She MAY have been of borderline notability in her field, but this article only discusses her murder, which is not notable. If this article were properly expanded, I could possibly change my vote. Indrian 04:11, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, appears to be notable. Megan1967 10:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Not only a notable news story, but the subject of a successful and controversial book. Haikupoet 23:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand based on her contributions to fashion. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per UncleG. Radiant_* 13:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as article stands now. --Combuchan 02:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:28, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

SiteSpect

Tagged as unencyclopedic, it is an ad for a software product. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete marketing fluff. Mindmatrix 14:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 01:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, Advert. -- Mwanner 14:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alan chan

• Delete: vanity --Durin 02:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Excommunicate. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Is that delete with Holy Water? Oh well...delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, this decision is very difficult. I must ponder for a moment. [one moment later] Delete. Keep. Delete. Keep. Delete. Keep. Delete. Keep. Delete. Keep. Oh... delete. ugen64 04:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all articles without verbs. Dsmdgold 20:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• No no no. All articles without verbs deletion. DS 13:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity from a non-notable person too lazy to use verbs or capitalize his name. Jonathunder 04:02, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:28, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Strike team

Tagged as unencyclopedic, this describes a group of players participating in the game "Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2" who have taken it upon themselves to rid the game of cheaters. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And supported by officials from the game's company, at least that is what the article says somewhere at the end. Can someone verify? If it's kept it needs major expansion and formatting. I'm missing a lot of context. Mgm|^(talk) 20:21, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• gamescruft, del BigFatDave 21:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete. notability, original research. Mikkalai 01:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trevor cagle

Trevor Ragnar Cagle is an amateur rapper and K-mart employee from Deland, Florida.Trevor is best known for his work the Florida Felonz, which comprise his brother, Hunter Cagle, and his best friend, Tim Vanholestein (Smoky). Trevor touts marijuana as a "healer" and, in conversation, will frequently state that he is a smoker for life. Trevor is thought to be, by many, a true pimp daddy.

• Delete - Stoph 03:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. --Durin 05:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It hardly gets less notable than this. Klonimus 07:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 14:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• del NN BigFatDave 21:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mcfly85 06:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The First President Street Power Station South Africa

Tagged as unencyclopedic. Seems to describe an ill fated South African power station from the early days of the 20th century. I do not understand how it could be notable. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It might have made the local news a century ago, but there seems to be nothing of any enduring significance even in that area, wherever it was. Maybe something that was news when the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica was written, when electric power was something new? I'm the one who stuck that uncyclopedic tag on; later I saw something about use of that being discouraged, but it sure seemed appropriate here. Gene Nygaard 03:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio of [[5]] Still it's a very interesting story of engineering malpractice, whereby the engineers spec'd an expensive though elegant system, giant internal combustion engines powered by [[|Town gas|producer gas]]. Except that they intended to use bituminous coal (Instead of coke) in the producers without concern for the massive amount of coal tar fouling and corrosion that would result from the direct gasification of bituminous coal. When the fouling and corrosion started; hilairity ensued and by mid 1907 the City Council had to reject the whole scheme and instituted legal proceedings against the suppliers to recover their losses.
• Keep (once the copyvio has been dealt with). Totally encyclopedic (with a bit of context added) - there are lots of historical items in Wikipedia far more trivial than this. But possibly better merged into an appropriate article on South African history. If they really mean gas turbine that would be a remarkably early use (I think they mean reciprocating gas engine). -- RHaworth 07:16, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Yes, basicly a very big for the time four stroke engine. Gas Turbines would require WWII era metalurgy/enginnering. All this takes place in 1906. Seems like the city had a good case against the engineers. People knew that if you used anything but coke in a producer, the output gas would contain the volitiles from the feedstock coal. And unless you planned to install a full getup to scrub the gas, primitive gas treatment equipment was going leave fairly large amount of tar and condensibles in the gas. Whats interesting is that the city purchased this system over a steam one, on the basis of saving fuel. I'm guess the reason then went with the producer gas engines, is that the system could easily adapt to fluctuations in demand whereas a steam boiler requires a pretty much constant fuel input to maintain high steam pressure. Big savings on high pressure piping since a producer gas system runs at almost atmospheric pressure. BTW if you are interested please take a look at Town gasKlonimus 09:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the copyvio, but if someone writes a good stub then it sounds like an encyclopedic topic. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit busy right now, but if this stays up for a little while, I'll rewrite it. Klonimus 20:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. Fix the copyvio, but any power station that can be made this interesting in its vfd discussion deserves an article. FreplySpang (talk) 20:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Did that sound sarcastic? I meant it sincerely. FreplySpang (talk) 15:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Double wow. Klonimus, if your new article is half as interesting as your above comment, we'll have us an instant feature. Delete the copyvio (natch) and let's make room for a great original article! - Lucky 6.9 04:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if somone is willing to contact the person mentioned in the copyvio'ed article we could get some more information. A hobby of mine is the history of coal gasification and related technologies. Thats how I was able to make a good hypothesis as to what happened in the article. I dont want write an article that is mostly hypothesizing on my part, even if I am pretty sure I am correct. What we need is a Request for knowledge I'd be happy to work with somone who knew more about early electric power systems. Klonimus 12:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio must go but the subject may deserve an article - Skysmith 08:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:29, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Magic in A.D.J.L.

Tagged as unencyclopedic. Seems to be cruft for a game called A.D.J.L. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Actually it's cruft for American Dragon: Jake Long (Animated Series). FreplySpang (talk) 20:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mcfly85 06:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides

Very important points have been made at wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images in favor of keeping. I suggest all of you to read it and synchronize your votes there and here. Mikkalai 00:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The creator of this VfD page (me) is a moron' - I meant the gallery of course since it is all images. Precedent was set on this issue by the Yucca Mountain article and the deletion of Yucca Mountain/images. I apologize for posting the wrong link at the top of my VfD even though this page is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides. Sorry for my mistake and I cannot be sure how many of those votes are because of my stupidity.... Unless this gallery page has some encyclopedic value then the place for image galleries is in the commons. gren 22:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The vote from this precedent is found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yucca Mountain/Images. This vote received no votes other than the nominator, gren. I do not believe that this is adequate to establish a consensus for deletion, or is adequate to establish a precedent that could wipe out an entire category of articles. There are 144 articles in Category:Wikipedia image galleries, and not all image galleries have been categorized. It also doesn't seem to me that the folk at Commons have come to a consensus as to whether or not images will be grouped into articles or categories there. If they decide against having galleries, we will be left without the content, having deleted ours. Now as to if there is some encyclopedic value to image galleries, I would say yes. One of the great advantages of Wikipedia is that it is not paper. One of the great drawbacks of traditional encyclopedias is that the number of images limited because they are expensive. When discussing an art object (which is what I consider the Vienna Dioscurides to be) the best way to understand it is to see it. With a complex object like a codex, you need many pictures to understand it. I felt when I created this article that separating the pictures into a gallery made the main article less ugly, but I consider them absolutely essential to understanding the piece. I am uncomfortable having the main gallery being on another project and which will include text in multiple languages as Wikicommons evolves. Perhaps I erred and should have just included the gallery in the main article, as has been done for Codex Aureus of Lorsch, but I find this very ugly. Dsmdgold 00:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by encyclopedic value I meant words a number of words (other than captions) to explain the images. Yes pictures have encyclopedic value, however, I don't believe they have a need to be duplicated on commons and Wikipedia if there is not going to be a big article with them. There will be arbitration on this issue in the near future no doubt gren 02:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Insisting that words are the key to having encyclodedic value is, in my mind, simply wrong when dealing with art objects. Commons is not an encyclopedia and certainly not an English language encyclopedia. Using Commons to provide galleries for the English Wikipedia will result in the linking to articles like this, which is simply unacceptable for an English language encyclopedia.

commons:Vienna Dioscurides replaces the need for this page as media pages should be migrated to commons (especially when all of the files are already commons).

• Delete Commons > wikipedia gallery. gren 03:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Huh? I'm afraid I don't understand. Why do we want an English language article on the commons? I thought the commons was to be used for images to be used by all language Wikipedias. Are we now planning on making every article part of the Commons? Keep. RickK 06:48, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems absolutely noteable. Martg76 07:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If the VfD is on the Gallery page, I change my vote to Delete/Transwiki. Martg76 15:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and "Huh?" as above. Kappa 13:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The link from to this page was removed from the article Vienna Dioscurides was removed by Grenavitar. In the Edit Summary he wrote "commons make that page useless". I would argue that that is not so. A newcomer to Wikipedia would not understand the purpose of the Commons link, but would understand the link to this article. Dsmdgold 14:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - if you really believe that is an issue (which I don't) you can make a link like Gallery of page from Vienna Dioscurides linking to the commons but showing that it is the gallery. gren 22:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, One can do that. But consider this scenario: some one has a list of specific manuscripts they want to read about. They read the Vienna Dioscurides article, follow the link to commons, are not aware that they have left Wikipedia, look at the pretty pictures, decide to go to the next manuscript, and type in "Book of Kells" in the search box and hit go. They get this rather than this. At this point, the poor user is confused and we have failed them. Dsmdgold 10:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems that this VfD actually was supposed to target Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides, not Vienna Dioscurides. Martg76 17:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete and do as gren says. Mikkalai 01:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)...er... done as grey says. Mikkalai 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable pictures. Klonimus 07:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to commons. - SimonP 12:57, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Very important points have been made at wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images in favor of keeping. I suggest all of you to read it and synchronize your votes there and here. Mikkalai 00:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yggdrasil (author)

Not convinced of the notability. Quite a number of google hits (2000 contain the words "Yggrasil" and "nationalism", but I don't think all of them are about this guy), but that's only to be expected from someone whose vehicle for expression is the internet. Grutness|^hello? 03:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Yggdrasil's website ranks fifth in the Google Directory for White "Supremacy and Separatism" Organizations [6] - Morning star 23:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - While I certainly understand questioning his notability (there being an inherent ring of non-notability to "anonymous Internet author"), I think he has made a substantial contribution to White nationalist discourse (one of his texts being used by the National Alliance [7], for example) —Morning star 05:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm sure his works regularly pop up on stormfront. I just wonder if we have enough information to make an article. Klonimus 06:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not only his works, but his posts have appeared on Stormfront, from 2001 to the present. Apparently he "had a major influence on [Stormfront]" and on Don Black's adoption and use of the term "White Nationalist" [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=38455]. - Morning star 23:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability. Mikkalai 02:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Yggdrasil" was head seraphim in the game Tales of Symphonia, meaning this is likely just a hoax. Bky1701 06:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is irrelevant. Yggdrasil is the world tree in Nordic myhology and a quite fitting pen-name for a white nationalist author. I think that they glike to use things of Germanic origin. I think that it comes from there rather than from any modern work of fiction which have borrowed this name form mythology, like Tales of Symphonia and Starcraft. No vote from me but I doubt the verifiability of this. Jeltz talk 10:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Correct. He defines the mythical tree and states: "In the context of White Nationalism, one can assume that Yggdrasil binds together different classes of Europeans". [8] - Morning star 23:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The fact is, in the game he was a elf that wanted to turn all humans into lifeless beings. Making it just seems hoax-like... Bky1701 06:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not verifiable. Yggdrasil is also a character in the Storm (comic) series, among others. Radiant_* 13:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If only for the linking of the Yggdrasil tree with White Nationalist currency. The sheer volume of critiques and myriad other works on the Internet is notable for its contribution to and impact on the White Nationalist movement . We cannot fall prey to the consideration that Yggdrasil is not notable because hir works have not gained wide circulation outside the strictures of hir virtually anonymous Internet platform. Curtsurly 05:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mcfly85 06:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 07:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of comedy websites

Article is a list of links to external humour web sites. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a web guide. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a Web guide. The page is alsp inherently POV in selection, scope, and classification. Neutrality^talk 04:04, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree --Anonymous Cow 04:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, wikipedia is not a web guide. Megan1967 07:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Another "incomplete list with two items" article brought to you by SamuraiClinton. android↔talk 15:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• These websites have offhand humor and they are stupendous. how can you hate that? ... del WP is not a web directory, and if it was, it would at least be complete. BigFatDave 21:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 01:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Mcfly85 06:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of names for the human penis

Stupid. Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Neutrality^talk 03:58, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with penis. Firebug 05:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not a good idea. penis is about the actual thing. This article is all about words, and is largely irrelevant to penis. We've got a dictionary for words. Let's use it. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with the relavent section of the list of sexual slang. Penises are always notable, unless they are merely stubs. Klonimus 06:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• LOL!!! Oh dude, that answer is going on BJAODN later. Meantime, merge with the sexual slang article. - Lucky 6.9 07:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's not even a good list - repetitive and lacks all of the interesting names (that are already listed over on Body parts slang). Merge there. Zack 07:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I added pecker to the list since it had been omitted. I still think the list should be combined with another article. Firebug 07:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not at all encyclopedic. Sjakkalle 09:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is useless duplication. There's a perfectly good entry for penis in Wiktionary that already has both a "Synonyms" section for synonyms and slang terms, and a "Translations" section for translations of the word into other languages (both of which are a lot larger than this list is). There's also a perfectly good Thesaurus page for "penis" in Wiktionary, too. Please do your dictionary work in the dictionary, people. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • And since when does size matter?
• Delete per Uncle G. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to Body_parts_slang BigFatDave 21:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• wiktionary entry in its very purest form. Mikkalai 01:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Uncle G, Wiktionary has facilities for synonyms and translation. Also, classic answer Klonimus! --bainer 06:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate/redundant list. Megan1967 10:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's already in Wiktionary. --Carnildo 00:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:21, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Roger Fletcher

Vanity Page. Perhaps the page about his business should be kept, but the self-aggrandizing is a little thick in this one.

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN, vanity. -- Mwanner 15:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Aaron Suski

Tagged with {{cleanup-importance}}. It looks like vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Looking at the history of the article. It seems like deja-vu. Nobody has expanded the article to explain the notability of this person the last time I visited it so delete. --Anonymous Cow 04:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Commment: Changed my mind on voting. Just searched on this person. Could be a notable person not into the skateboard thing so... no vote. --Anonymous Cow 04:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, underthe bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Google has 1500+ hits for "Aaron Suski" + skateboard. Dsmdgold 20:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

BuildToLearn.com

Looks like an ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vegaswikian 05:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. El spammo. - Lucky 6.9 07:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 14:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Danny Breaks

Tagged as {{cleanup-importance}}. Looks like non-notable vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Megan1967 —Wahoofive | Talk 03:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, Vanity. -- Mwanner 15:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This DJ is actually quite well known among the underground rave community, especially among lovers of jungle. He's been interviewed in Junglized magazine, he's toured internationally, and he even has a CD available for order on Amazon.com. If by 'vanity', it's meant that he wrote this personally to promote himself, I sincerely doubt that he's suffering from enough of a lack of publicity to bother. He, to my knowledge, remains one of the top drum and bass DJs worldwide. He is certainly of interest to more than 100 people. This article should be expanded, however. Myrkabah
  • Oops, Myrkabah is right. Google turns up 14,000+ hits. Keep. -- Mwanner 23:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was refer to copyvio. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FunnelWeb

Currently tagged as {{cleanup-importance}}. Nothing notable that describes this software other than an extract from its web site. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Tagged as copyvio now. Also, the software is rather non-notable, so I'd vote for delete and replace with redirect to the funnelweb spider. Radiant_* 13:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 07:26, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Futuristics

Currently tagged as {{cleanup-importance}}. One sentence reads, Futuristics is relatively a recent subject and not very much developed. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect (nothing to merge) to Future studies —Wahoofive | Talk 06:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Future studies. Megan1967 07:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Gonzo Films

Currently tagged as {{cleanup-importance}}. It says that this film production company's first feature-length project, KINGDOM ANIMALIA, will be released in mid-to-late Summer 2005. The comment on its talk page says that this is probably a hoax. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax or speculation. RickK 06:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• My theory is that they are "aspiring" amateurs. Delete anyway. Kappa 08:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. verifiability. Mikkalai 02:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Heeltribune

Has been tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} for about two weeks. Currently it just says, Heeltribune is similar to an online newspaper published by college students. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability. Mikkalai 02:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's not a newspaper, more of a blog, but one of a zillion. Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 03:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, its basically just an external link--nixie 02:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Imran Ho

Currently tagged with {{cleanup-importance}}. It does not explain how this associate professor of linguistics is notable or significant. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 07:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability. Mikkalai 02:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability. MooVLuvr 19:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fubcap

Finnish high school band. To quote the article, "Since their band was created, they have not managed to reach success...They have not a lot of fans yet." Delete as vanity. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity --Durin 05:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vegaswikian 05:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, I am very sympathetic to all things Finnish though. Klonimus 06:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant band. Note that Finnish Wikipedia is also voting about removing their copy of this; current tally there is 10 delete, 0 keep. jni 15:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Xezbeth 18:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Iqara

Just looks like an ad for a Broadband internet service provider operating in India. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP .. if this looks like an AD , then there are thousands of "AD's" in wikipedia .. its a STUB .. and will be later expanded .. Leningrad
• Keep per Leningrad. It's just facts, not hype, and if its part of the British Gas group it's likely to be notable. Kappa 00:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ghillie

This is pure dicdef (indeed a direct copy of Mirriam-Webster's). I see no potential for growth. It's already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 04:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could be expanded to explain what a Ghillie's duties were, what they wore, and the technique they used to carry the chief across the stream. Piggyback perhaps. Kappa 08:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If someone wants to create an encyclopedia article in it's place, they can do so after the dicdef has been deleted.--Halidecyphon 15:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• From "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press, 1993 wouldn't that make it a copyvio too? Lots of good reasons to delete BigFatDave 21:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, copyvio. Mikkalai 02:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for all the reasons given above. There is already an entry on Wiktionary: [9]. --bainer 06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 19:58, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mongometer

Delete: Neologism. --Durin 05:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete? Vegaswikian 06:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 07:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline speedy. The only Google hits are on one message board. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:48, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, stupidity. jni 15:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Del neologism BigFatDave 21:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Stacy Bellomo

Utterly non-notable. Only a handful of Google hits, and most don't even appear to refer to the subject of the article. Possible vanity. Firebug 06:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Tish and Snooky are definitely notable punk personalities. Keep and expand; if that doesn't happen before VfD is done, redirect to Manic Panic. --iMb~Meow 11:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable punk personalities and people in bands with Debbie Harry. Kappa 12:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, she was notable in the New York punk seen. Megan1967 10:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to meet WikiMusic Project guidelines about notable member and the Manic Panic connection appears notable as well. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Tish Bellomo

See previous entry on Stacy Bellomo. Firebug 06:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Tish and Snooky are definitely notable punk personalities. Keep and expand; if that doesn't happen before VfD is done, redirect to Manic Panic. --iMb~Meow 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable in punk fashion and because of Debbie Harry connections. Kappa 12:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per her sister Stacy. Megan1967 10:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for same reasons as for Stacy. Capitalistroadster 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cameron Crawford

Vanity. RickK 06:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 15:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. FreplySpang (talk) 20:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Samaritan 04:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Osim

Advertising stub. Non-notable Internet company. Firebug 06:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete content and redirect to Ivica Osim. Martg76 07:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 02:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to wikisource. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ode to Psyche

Appears to be original source material. I think it's out of copyright, so it should be transwikied. Firebug 06:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Megan1967 07:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Five Dollar Job

#include <delete_nonnotable_web_comic.h> Firebug 06:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. webcomic. jni 15:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Link to Talk Page on disputed decision

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Free Republic.
There is more discussion about this decision on the talk page. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jim Robinson

Ok, we've been having a bit of a dispute about this one; you may (or may not, since most of it is not about the merits of the article, but about the fact that I tried to merge it) want to visit the [[Talk:Jim Robinson|talk page] to see some history of the debate. Jim is notable only, as far as I can tell, for his website Free Republic, and I feel most of the information on this page (e.g. allegations that money donated to Free Republic was used improperly) really belongs on that page. As we have been unable to discuss this effectively up to this point, I'm putting it on VfD, so that a) we can get more eyes looking at it, and b) perhaps we can have a real discussion about the merits of the article, rather than the politics surrounding my abortive attempt at merging it.

• • • Discussion not relevant to this article has been moved to the talk page
      • Thanks. --Jonathan Christensen 14:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Free Republic. The site is notable, he is only notable because of the site. The controversy stuff is interesting, but is about the site as much as the man. --bainer 06:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - no on merge and redirect. As I noted on Talk:Jim_Robinson where this discussion should be taking place per wikipedia policy, there is extensive precedent for having two different articles for well known political website owners and their websites/blogs etc. Among the many examples are:

• The Daily Kos blog and owner Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
• The Drudge Report and owner Matt Drudge
• The Little Green Footballs blog and owner Charles Johnson
• Power Line (blog) and its owners John_H._Hinderaker and Scott_W._Johnson

• So long as this is done on other similar websites no valid reason exists to treat this one any differently. Rangerdude 17:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • NB The above two bullet points are one vote by Rangerdude, just in case it's not entirely clear. --Jonathan Christensen 14:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In keeping with the guidelines at the top of WP:VFD, I'd also like to point out that User:Rangerdude is the author of the article in question. --Jonathan Christensen 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment In keeping with the wikipedia VFD Policy, I'd also like to point out that a clear majority consensus to keep this article already existed on the discussion page talk:Jim Robinson at the time this VfD process was initiated (4 editors to 2), the main dissenting voice being the individual who both sought the original merge and initiated this VfD process. The second dissenting editor concurred with his position, though he/she also recognized it was not the majority position. Rangerdude 17:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And I'd like to point out that this is a lie, as there were at most three people (accounts) in favor of keeping the article: Rangerdude, Wakeforest (a puppet) and ObsidianOrder, who came from the RfC page, posted one brief comment, and has never come back. There were two obviously in favor of merging: myself and Katefan0. However, we can continue discussion on this matter at the corresponding point on the talk page, as this is not very relevent to the article anymore. Thanks for telling the truth in the future, anyway, Rangerdude! --Jonathan Christensen 05:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Tis no lie at all, JC. You've forgotten/ignored User:Casito, who originally objected to your merger and requested that you discuss it first. You essentially shunned him then since he imposed upon your unilateral actions, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised you would ignore him again here. Rangerdude 06:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, as you would know if you actually read the Talk page, I've far from forgotten Casito--I simply do not believe that his suggestion that I try discussing before merging counts as a vote on the side of keeping them as seperate articles. In fact, he later said, on the Talk:Free Republic, I probably should have read this talk too before I reverted the page when I did. I’ll make some notes in both talk pages to prevent others from doing the same.-Casito 23:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC), which makes the view that he is in absolute support of keeping them in different articles unreasonable. Along the same line, he also said, on his talk page: Silly me, I should have read the Talk:Free Republic page before I commented. Or maybe I shouldn’t have been reading recent changes in the wee hours of the morning. -Casito 23:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) In any case, I've asked him to come clarify his views here, so hopefully we will soon learn the truth from the horse's mouth, so to speak. --Jonathan Christensen 11:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • To set the record straight: I found this page while following RC. I took actions after only reading talk:Jim Robinson. This page contained no mention of the fact that it would be merged to Free Republic. This looked like simple page vandalism or a rather unilateral and inelegant political statement. I didn't bother to check out talk:Free Republic which is quite understandable since JC left me no clues. If I had read talk:Free Republic, I would have seen the ongoing debate and let the disputants decide what to do, since it wasn't my plan to get entangled in a long-standing dispute that I didn't care about. I take no position on the merits of the Jim Robinson article, but I believe the action taken by JC was inappropriate. I hope this clears things up. -Casito⇝Talk 20:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. This man is only notable for the Website he runs; I therefore see no reason for there to be two separate articles. As to Daily Kos et al, I feel that he and his Website are not as familiar to most folks as the others. Although, for that matter, I'm not entirely sure that their webmasters need their own article either. As to the VfD, it's true that merging is not usually a reason to list on VfD, but considering that the redirecter and the person who keeps reverting the redirects have been unable to come to an agreement, it is appropriate, I think, to put the matter to the general populace. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Founder of Free Republic makes him notable enough in my book. That is where the discrepancies in the documents in the Sixty Minutes II story on George W. Bush's alleged problems with the Texas National Guard. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redir as above. Radiant_* 13:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Free Republic. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. There is very little information on the man- most of it is about the website. --G Rutter 07:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Jim Robinson has no notable personal life except for his dealings with Free Republic, and the information about the funding controversy added a great deal to the Free Republic article in which it belongs. I love how an insignifigant article can generate thousands of words of debate on Wikipedia :-) --Halidecyphon 18:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - He's the founder of a very notable political website of undeniable importance, and there's enough info out there about his life and past to make a decent, informative article that is of interest to anyone who is curious about how the site came to be. Not all of it belongs in the "Free Republic" article. I did an article about this guy at another site (negative POV) and would be happy to expand this article here (keeping it neutral POV, of course). Mcsweet
• Merge and redirect. Neutrality^talk 04:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

LD distributors

NN, prosletyzing. Firebug 06:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Seems notable to me, as there are no website links that sell anything. This is the first edit of 67.150.100.85 (talk · contribs), whose second edit was to vandalize Megan1967's vote.
• Delete, just seems to be an article to driect peopel to a religious website, otherwise called an advertisment. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems non-notable. --Laura Scudder | Talk 09:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, vote vandalism. android↔talk 15:47, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete firmly, both because the article is non-encyclopedic and because vote-tampering like 67.150.100.85 (talk · contribs) and 67.150.98.207 (talk · contribs) have been up to should be smacked down hard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note An anonymous user is changing other users' votes. The admin deciding consensus should check the authenticity of votes. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 10:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• del ad, NN, POV, etc. BigFatDave 22:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable fundycruft. Haikupoet 00:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Lord of Chaos. Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Dumai's Wells

I have just placed a "Considered for Deletion" tag on this article, for several reasons. 1) To the average Wikipedia reader, this article is unneccessary; those who know what Dumai's Wells is, probably also know what happened, and those who don't know probably don't care. 2) The information contained could be easily folded into the article on Lord of Chaos (which needs expanding anyway). 3) This is not a particularly important feature of the series. Marblespire 04:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge into Lord of Chaos. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I'm not sure if we should keep it as a redirect. Jeltz talk 13:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If things are merged, the redirect should generally be kept to preserve edit history. Kappa 03:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. And shorten substantially. It is after all, one chapter in one book in a series. And no redirect. -- Mwanner 14:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that it was just in one chapter but it was some time ago sicne I last read the book, but even if it was three chapters (which isn't much either) it still needs to be shortened substantially. Jeltz talk 16:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Redirs are cheap and keep the edit history. Meelar (talk) 16:21, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Keeping the redirect does no harm; there aren't any other Battles of Dumai's Wells with which this might be confused, and it discourages recreation of the article. Submitter is urged to be bold and just do the merge himself next time. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect wheel-o'-time-cruft BigFatDave 22:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Fancruft. Merge and redirect per WP:FICT. —Korath (Talk) 12:04, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep fictional things. Kappa 03:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge tho I think its interesting that Battle of Endor gets its own page. :) Roodog2k 16:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kim Jong Lee

Delete as non-notable/vanity. Google sez 0 hits. Feco 07:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like vainity to me Drak 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Abstain Megan1967 12:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Halmstads BK

Not in English. Firebug 07:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - somebody's rewritten it in English now. For future reference: non-English pages don't go on VFD - they need to be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation. sjorford →•← 08:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is in English now. Since the article is on VfD, I have restored the VfD-tag, even though the problem is remedied. Sjakkalle 09:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could use some clean up though. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article is on a good start. --iMb~Meow 10:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable team in professional soccer league. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

FK Teplice

• Delete, not a notable team, probably could go on a different language wikipedia considering the team's website isn't even in English. Is this team even professional? — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 07:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - we have pages for all teams playing in the UEFA Champions League/UEFA Cup. It couldn't go on a different language Wikipedia considering it's not in a different language. sjorford →•← 08:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is very notable Czech team, if you'll piss me off I will nominate some Premier League team for VfD! By the way, ALL teams in Czech First and Second Division are full professional. -- Darwinek 08:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like another example of ignorance by the "deleter.". Drak 11:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And that's a reason to keep the article by implying someone is ignorant? A gentle reminder on Wikipedia:Civility. Megan1967 11:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm a rough 1000 kilometers away, and I've heard of them. It's a notable team. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 20:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable soccer team. Klonimus 20:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all soccer teams in professional leagues. Capitalistroadster 02:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hugh peebles

Hugh peebles in advertising his website and future publications on Wikipedia, delete --nixie 08:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Article fails to establish notability. Sjakkalle 10:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 12:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Article is a duplicate of the author's userpage, which is where the material belongs. -- Mwanner 14:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 20:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• vanity & NN, del BigFatDave 22:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indiana Jones 4

Speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. RickK 08:38, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Not a crystal ball, but this is a film about which there has been much speculation and hype. Undecided. Drak 11:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (As long as I don't have to watch it!) A quick google confirms that Spielberg has confirmed pre-production. --Doc Glasgow 11:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hollywood vaporware until filming actually begins or a release date is set. --Calton | Talk 13:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How is a movie in pre-production worthy of an encyclopedia entry? At this point, it amounts to entertainment news, at best. As the "article" says Little information on the story has been been released...(!) When (if) the movie is released, it will be time enough for an article. -- 14:45, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

See Casino Royale (2006 movie) for an example of how a movie in pre-pre-production is perfectly worthy of an article ... when there is sufficient information and media coverage available. So far IJ4 has had little of this, so a reluctant Delete vote for now. 23skidoo 23:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - speculation --Anonymous Cow 15:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Indiana Jones until there are some substantial details about the new film—or at least a release date. (Indiana Jones already contains speculation about a fourth movie.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Indiana Jones, speculation already mentioned there. This article can be recreated if there's something confirmed to report. Mgm|^(talk) 20:32, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• redir to Indiana Jones. BigFatDave 22:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Indiana Jones. Vaporware less (in)famous than Duke Nukem Forever probably doesn't need an article. Shimmin 00:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation - wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 10:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Jetru 07:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fate of Atlantis, the computer game about Indiana Jones that is the fourth installment (the fifth would be the Infernal Machine). Radiant_* 13:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Indiana Jones. Entertainment news. — Quoth 05:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Where the Magic Begins (book)

The book doesn't seem to exist (and if it had, it wouldn't have been written & illustrated by Walt Disney Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I couldn't find the book using google or amazon.com either. Probably a hoax. Sjakkalle 09:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cartoon Vandal cruft. He tends to make things up a lot. RickK 21:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably fictional. —tregoweth 07:45, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:01, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Leaurtoe

Possible hoax. Google, Yahoo, alltheweb and Alta Vista all return zero results for Leaurtoe. -- P Ingerson 12:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 13:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A peculiar hoax. As the article says "...many right-thinking articalists and specialist free-writers understand it to be utter nonsense." -- Mwanner 17:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,Some ppl have too much time--Jetru 07:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Toerag

This is a slang dicdef without potential. There was a previous VfD discussion that ended in "no consensus" (even though all the votes were for delete and move to Wiktionary). Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 01:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I fail to see how 2 deletes and a tranwiki turns into a keep. -R. fiend 02:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. In agreement with R. fiend and nominator. -mysekurity 02:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as per above. royblumy 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 08:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all dic defs. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- for above reasons.--Bhadani 15:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Folio (Company)

A school 'enterprise' company, non-encyclopedic self-promotion--nixie 13:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Folio Young Enterprise is active within the Colchestrian community. The article provides information to many in Colchester, as well as members of the School. I intend for the Young Enterprise of CRGS to be integrated with Colchester Royal Grammar School. -- Comment by User:213.78.82.189

Keep it.. 'self-promotion' was never intended to be a motive for writing this article. It is certainly not 'non-encyclopedic', if only for the reason that it provides information to many people who will never buy a product. The style of the article is informative, not self-promoting, and to delete it would be to go against wikipedia's original aims: to inform without bias based on importance. I would politely suggest that perhaps wikipedia is going downhill if people spend their time looking for knowledge to be lost rather than found. This is as much about the principles as about the specific argument: the loss of knowledge is against wikipedia's deeply-held core beliefs, and as not a single word of the article is opinion, to delete would be to go against all of this. --diji_tak 15:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote keep. As a resident of Colchester (undeniably one of the more famous towns in Britain) I found this article useful. No attempt has been made to sell the products of the company (especially since most would be irrelevant to the target audience) and there is only one link to the website, so I do not think this article is particularly self-promoting. On the contrary, I found it to be most informative and educational. Admittedly, it is a little short, and with a little expansion it could be truly encycolpedic, but I see no reason to delete the article. Keep it. --flex21 16:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is this group significantly different from the countless Junior Enterprise chapters in other schools? I'm not convinced of the notability of a company that only exists for one year, and then only within the walls of a grammar school. Delete, or merge to Colchester Royal Grammar School if they want it there. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge to Colchester Royal Grammar School as per TenOfAllTrades. Add a link from Junior Enterprises as this is a good example. Folio just doesn't come across as having an existence separate from the grammar school. FreplySpang (talk) 19:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Colchester Royal Grammar School, not really notable outside of the college. Megan1967 04:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above but add infomation about Prism Their other young enterprise company. (See [10].) TAS 11:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Professors

Pointless list, and so far mostly without content (two Indian names, both red-linked). / Uppland 13:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. if it were taken seriously, it would be immense (and pointless). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One shudders to think... -- Mwanner 13:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before this list gets out of hand. As a rule, average professors are not considered notable enough for articles. Sjakkalle 13:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there are literally tens of thousands of professors in Europe, let alone when we consider the other continents. Really pointless to try and list them, if they have any notable achievements they should have their own pages, but there is no need to maintain a central list. Oliver Keenan 13:58, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would be far, far too long a list to be useful if filled in. Average Earthman 15:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainable. Mgm|^(talk) 20:40, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most professors are nn in and of themselves, the two red links are even wrongly named. RickK 21:08, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• looks like a redlink farm to me, delete before it starts spawning articles on NN professors. BigFatDave 22:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All notable professors are notable for something besides being a professor. Shimmin 00:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, far to large a group. SeventyThree 00:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Professor" gets 148,000,000 Google hits. Of course there's plenty of repetition and uses that are not references to actual professors, but still... -- 8^D ^gab 01:42, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Delete,The things people think of...--Jetru 07:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but subdivide into Lists of professors by country, Lists of professors by field and List of professors by IQ. Kappa 22:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Applied Mathematicians

• Delete. There is already a List of mathematicians. Redundant. -- Mwanner 14:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with the above. Oleg Alexandrov 15:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I always thought an applied mathematician was an engineer. Meelar (talk) 20:48, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect the few entries to List of mathematicians. — RJH 01:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of mathematicians. Megan1967 04:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of mathematicians*nods*--Jetru 07:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of mathematicians. --Viriditas | Talk 07:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 23:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stanislaw Albinowski

• Delete? Article makes a reasonable claim to notability, but I get zero Google hits on this name. -- Mwanner 14:24, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Please try to use the proper spelling with "ł"
  • http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Stanis%C5%82aw+Albinowski
  • http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=Stanis%C5%82aw+Albinowski&lr=

Comment: OK, that yields 129 hits, all of which are in Polish. He already has an entry on pl.wikipedia.org. Note: Article author's username is Stanislaw Albinowski -- Mwanner 15:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be a reasonably prominent Polish journalist and writer. Some expansion of the biography would be fine, though. Author's username is irrelevant and likely just a sign of momentary lack of imagination, as s/he registered to write the article. / Uppland 17:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since we do not need to have two sources of information for this person. If we need an en version, then someone should be able to set up translation from the Polish page. Vegaswikian 22:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I get the impression that the present page is a translation from the Polish page. Why should we need a new translation? / Uppland 22:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's interesting that the article and all modifications were made by User:Stanislaw Albinowski, and that he keeps a "safe copy" on his user page. Things that make you go hmm... — RJH 01:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Mikkalai 02:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable polish economist. Klonimus 00:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it appears that the subject of the article is quite probably the same editor User:Stanislaw Albinowski, delete on the grounds of possible vanity (or an attempt to subvert the vfd process). Megan1967 04:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That may be taken as a personal attack against the author of the article. I think that is against some rule around here. / Uppland 07:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And there are rules on user names: Avoid usernames that are offensive, inflammatory or confusing. and Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure or event or known Wikipedia vandal.. If that user is not Stanislaw Albinowski, he is an imposter and has no grounds for complaint. Megan1967 10:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article could need some expansion by someone familiar with the person, but there is really nothing seriously wrong with it. In fact, it is probably better than 99% of the articles on baseball or cricket players. The nomination is based on a faulty search and reinforced by unfounded suspicions of vanity. Polish economists mainly active during the 1960s through 1980s aren't necessarily very googlable. Moreover, the subject of the article is dead, perished, a Polish ex-journalist, has gone to his maker etc. At least according to the article he died 25 January 2005. Even supposing he wouldn't be dead, he is born in 1923. How many 82 year old Polish economists do you think we have on Wikipedia? — The existence, name and books of Albinowski can very easily be checked using the catalogue of the National Library of Poland here, which also confirms the birth-year (death-year is not given, but these kinds of things often lag behind a few years). I also find reference to nine articles in economic journals in the IBSS: International Bibliography of the Social Sciences database, all written in Polish. (These academic publication databases usually have a bias towards Western European languages, especially English, so there are likely more articles.) The K G Saur World Biographical Information System Online (WBIS Online) also confirms his existence and refers to Who's Who in the Socialist Countries of Europe (München [et al.]: Saur, 1989). I also found a reference to him in an article in The Times Oct. 27, 1960, according to which Albinowski was the economic commentator for the Warsaw paper Zycie Warszawy and an outspoken critic of the way the Comecon worked at the time. / Uppland 07:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If he is dead, why is there a User:Stanislaw Albinowski still editing as of today? Either 1) his death is incorrect reported or 2) there is a wikipedia editor pretending to be the Stanislaw Albinowski (with the Stanislaw Albinowski article on his userpage), in which case the admins should look into it. Megan1967 10:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The author is a newbie who registered both here and on the Polish Wikipedia yesterday. As I pointed out above, when registering he most likely just took the first name that popped up in his head. Somebody seems to have complained about it on the Polish Wikipedia too, but there is probably nothing sinister about, and it is certainly no reason to delete the article. / Uppland 11:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Stanislaw Albinowski is dead, but User:Stanislaw Albinowski is an user - newbie, as Uppland reported. Even if he is son of Stanislaw Albinowski - it is no reason to delete.
        Mr. Albinowski was rather "old-fashion" East-block socialist-economist and the present times show, that his opinions were quite wrong, but it is not the reason to delete the article. --Julo 14:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The significance of the user name is that I probably would not have looked twice at this article if I hadn't noticed that the names were the same. Then, when I saw that the subject was deceased, I rather suspected that the author was the subject's son. Nothing at all wrong with that, it's quite nice, in fact, but it lead me to question whether the article would have been written were circumstances otherwise. I suspect that the subject does not pass the "more notable than the average professor" test, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. But this is why we have a voting process, in the hope that collective wisdom is greater than individual wisdom. -- Mwanner 21:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to have been influential during Polish economic debates during the 1980's making him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - might not be notable to you, but he was quite notable in Poland. Should English Wikipedia only include what is notable to an average American? Ausir 10:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately there are people who think we should have higher notability standards for articles about non-English-language topics. Kappa 22:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster, and aim for equal coverage regardless of language. Kappa 22:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this person was indeed Polish econmist and a notable one. As to the author of the article, he claims (on his talk page at the Polish wiki) to bear the exact same name as the late Mr. Albinowski, which may or may not be true. --filu 18:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Both Stanislaw and Albinowski are rather common Polish names. Roughly it translates into Stanley White or Whiteman

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gotham Radio

An internet radio with around 300 listeners. I'm impressed. Delete. --Sn0wflake 14:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I completely agree if Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Radio KoL results in merge or delete. I created it to show how unimportant these stations are, but if Radio KoL who has only 125 listeners stays, i'll be voting keep for one with 300. Hedley 14:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Now that Radio KoL has been merged, I can see a consensus on internet radio notability, and as I result vote delete. Hedley 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Decisions should be made on a per-case basis. The sheer fact that you created this article to prove a point (which is not being proven, BTW) is enough to earn you a temporary ban. I would ask that you reconsidered your actions on this case. --Sn0wflake 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't create it to prove a point. Its well written enough for Wikipedia. Hedley 16:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Notability. --Sn0wflake 16:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, less notable than Radio KoL but notable enough for Wikipedia. Grue 15:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually as it's looks like WP:POINT ("If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion... don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on VfD."), I abstain from voting. Grue 17:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't create it just to get it listed. I wrote it to stay so it can go with all the immensely popular stations with a few hundred listeners that people vote to keep. With no rulings against re-listing on VfD, i'll be happy to relist any other similiarly un-notable, less popular stations on the basis that this has been deleted. Hedley 21:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, the note on your User page leaves your neutral position on this issue quite clear. Tread carefully, some sysops are not very forgiving around these parts. Anyway, one useless article down, a couple thousand to go. --Sn0wflake 00:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I propose a similar limit to that we have for books. Less than 500 is far too few, and of the order of vanity publishing. A notable internet radio station would be peaking it 5000, minimum. Preferably 10,000. Average Earthman 20:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RickK 21:10, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Perhaps add a one or two-liner to the SHOUTcast page in a section on stations using their technology. — RJH 01:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gotham has about 200 listeners on right now; Digitally Imported close to 4000. And this is on a Sunday afternoon (where I am). --Idont Havaname 21:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The decision on Radio KoL was merge and went with Kingdom of Loathing. Merge if there's an appropriate place for this. Jinian 13:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Festa no Apê

A song by a non-notable singer. It's a cover version of Dragostea Din Tei. Delete. --Sn0wflake 14:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Dragostea Din Tei unless there is an article about the "fabricated" genre of Brazilian music where it would fit. FreplySpang (talk) 19:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable cover version. Megan1967 04:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per User:FreplySpang. --cesarb 01:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The absent crowd

Band formed in 2004, no releases, vanity, escaped notice by assition of the importance template, delete--nixie 14:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 19:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• NN highschool band, delete BigFatDave 22:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delee, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:07, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Turkishstudents.com

Non-notable, substub, for a web forum, Delete--nixie 14:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The web forum is in Turkish. There probably aren't many Turks with Alexa Toolbars, but its traffic rank there is 4,991,883. Site statistics: "Konu: 1,045, Mesaj: 6,592, Üyeler: 956;" no inbound links. 0 sites that link to turkishstudents.com (or with www.) via Google. Delete as non-notable. Samaritan 15:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Based on Samaritan's research, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 20:44, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 04:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:19, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Jetru 07:54, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:07, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Sanchez

Bogus entry for a imaginary wrestler, google searches do not verify anything in this article, all users other edits were reverted, delete --nixie 14:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified. Average Earthman 20:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, false article. Paulley 12:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable/unverified. --Chrysaor 19:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. ---LBMixPro^{(Holla back!)}

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lacerte

Spam & marketing. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 14:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to keep after alteration. I would maintain that my original listing was totally acceptable, as was my complaint about the passing the buck style of voting that pervades VfD. If an article is deleted, a proper article can take its place. I think having a poor seed article is discouraging contributions. </rant> Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 21:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Lacerte is notable; was an independent company and holds substantial market share in the commercial tax prep market. Article should be improved, obviously - critique that it consists of marketing content is correct. -- Cleduc 17:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you want to do the rewrite? If you do, then write it. If you don't, don't pass the buck by saying that an article should be here. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 19:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Nothing wrong with a vote that says "Keep and tag for cleanup". I make the same vote all the time. Just because the voter personally doesn't know about a topic doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article. This content is better than nothing. Meelar (talk) 20:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. I have rewritten the article, with most of the same content but less spammy flavor. Should be slightly more acceptable. Meelar (talk) 20:47, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete based on above comment that it is marketing content. If someone rewrites the article before the VfD deadline and it is an acceptable article, then this vote can be ignored. Vegaswikian 18:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it is notable enough that someone will actually bother to rewrite this advert, rather than just saying someone else should. Average Earthman 20:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to Intuit, Inc.. FreplySpang (talk) 20:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. merge and redirect. RickK 21:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand — If as their home page http://www.lacertesoftware.com/ claims their software has sold 40,000 copies to professional tax preparers, that would seem sufficiently notable. — RJH 00:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now and allow for expansion. Kappa 03:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I had an internship with the company, and they are very notable and large enough for an entry. chris hathaway 18:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-done Meelar and thanks Smoddy for nomination of the article so that it can be improved. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 23:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Surrealist Group in Stockholm

• Delete, Vanity, Advertising and Spam. A non-notable group that is no longer in existence. Note: This group does not provide any credible material to justify notability for an article on Wikipedia.Classicjupiter2 15:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you claim they are no longer in existence. You made it up, plain and simple. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep (changed vote per Uppland below. Sorry for the over hasty decision. ) I live in Stockholm and I've certainly never heard of them, looks like vanity, fails to establish notability.--Halidecyphon 15:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- should be a special Speedy for surrealist groups. -- Cleduc 17:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote should be discounted as it betrays a prejudice against surrealism, or, at least, surrealist groups. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not prejudiced against surrealism (or flying mustard cats peeing antimatter). If you've been around VfD for a while, you see these Surrealist Groups a lot, and they're all vanity-vandalism. -- Cleduc 02:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • According to Mr. Boyer's note on my vote above, his vote should also be discounted because his user page shows he is an avid surrealist, and therefore prejudiced in favor of surrealism. Of course, votes don't work that way -- you don't have to justify them at all. -- Cleduc 02:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I am Swedish and haven't heard of them either, but then there is no reason why I would have heard of every Swedish group of artists or writers. The group still appears to exist.[11] The journal Stora saltet, published 1995-1998, can be verified from the catalogue of the Swedish Royal Library.[12] According to their website, they still publish other stuff under their own imprint, and one member of the group, M. Forshage, has had a collection of poems published by Ellerströms, a small but prestigious Swedish publisher.[13] / Uppland 18:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS. See additional comments below:
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I ahven't heard of them (I live in STockholm too) but I there are probably quite many notable groups in Stockholm that I never have heard of (hard to guess how many since I never have heard of them :)). This is group could be notable. Jeltz talk 19:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Surrealism is always notable. Klonimus 20:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why there's an article on surrealism. This group, however, is not. Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 01:52, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    • Cod Liver Oil Klonimus 05:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, needs expansion. Slightly more notable (just) than many of the surrealist groups that have come up for vfd in the last few months. Megan1967 05:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional keep Would be on more solid ground if any of the "notable" members were of demonstrated such, the article's links weren't all red, etc... Alai 07:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Some additional results from the national library catalogue Libris of the Swedish Royal Library and from Swedish national and regional newspaper text databases:
• Carl-Michael Edenborg is a critic, editor, translator, publisher and historian of ideas and literature. He has written two books:
  • Alkemins skam : den alkemiska traditionens utstötning ur offentligheten ("The shame of alchemy : expulsion of the alchemical tradition from the public sphere"). This was also his Ph.D. dissertation (Univ. of Stockholm 2002) and was awarded with the Paracelsus prize by the Swedish Paracelsus Society (for whatever that is worth).
  • Gull och mull: den monstruöse Gustaf Bonde, upplysningens fiende i frihetstidens Sverige : historien om hans exkrementalkemi, hans krets och värld : försedd med psykoanalytiska, Batailleska och historiematerialistiska reflexioner, samt ett utkast mot döden. (Lund : Ellerström, 1997) (On Gustaf Bonde, a 18th century Swedish politician who was also an alchemist.)
• Edenborg has also edited and translated several other books, been a critic in the national newspaper Aftonbladet, and published articles in respected journals indexed by the Royal Library in their national library catalogue Libris. He owns an apparently somewhat controversial publishing company Vertigo.
• Aase Berg (homepage) has published a few books and also written criticism for notable Swedish literary journals.[14] She has published a couple of books with the Surrealist group's publishing company Surrealistförlaget and Edenborg's Vertigo, but has also had three books published by Bonnier, which is the largest and most prestigious publishing house in Sweden. She is or has been editor of BLM (Bonniers Litterära Magasin), a leading literary journal, and is a critic in daily paper Expressen.
• Mattias Forshage has published a book of poetry, Angående näktergalarna man fann på glaciärisen ("Concerning the nightingales they found on the ice", Ellerströms, Lund 1998, - critics were leaning towards the negative) and has translated/edited other things, among them "Selected romantic fragments" by Friedrich Schlegel and other texts by Georges Bataille and Richard Huelsenbeck. Forshage seems to have been a naturalist for some time (judging from some of the content of his books) and is now apparently working on a Ph.D. in entomology [15].
• Johannes Bergmark (homepage, CV discography) is a composer, musician, sound technician and instrument builder. He was apparently one of 16 persons covered in a book about young Swedish composers by Teddy Hultberg, SoundArt (2001), has been played on national Swedish radio, performed in various concerts, including festivals in London, New York etc. A number of CDs, but I can't judge the significance of these. Has collaborated with Edenborg back in the late 1980s.
• Kajsa Bergh has illustrated a book published at Surrealistförlaget in 1988. No hits in newspaper texts.
• Bruno Jacobs is a poet, editor and translator. Libris has seven titles, not all his alone. Only a few hits in newspaper texts. (BTW, Google shows that there are other many people with this name, including a Swiss classical scholar who seems noteworthy.)
• H. Christian Werner has coedited books with Jacobs. No obviously relevant newspaper hits.

• Conclusion: Although some of these people obviously must have have other day-jobs, as a group they seem to have a fairly large corpus of publications, many in collaboration with one another, and a decent presence in the culture sections of Swedish newspapers. Individually, Carl-Michael Edenborg and Aase Berg probably could deserve articles of their own, if somebody would bother writing them. I don't know what the Wikipedia music guidelines would say about Bergmark. / Uppland 10:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Added note on above conclusion: Excellent research Uppland! While it is a fact that these individuals' own accomplishements appear to justify an article on themselves, the issue here is, The Surrealist Group in Stockholm. Granted, each seperate member does have a history of accomplishments outside of this group, but again, the focus here is on the Stockhlom Group as a whole. Yes, Carl and Aase do deserve an article on their own merits, but not this group. This group's collective history does not provide enough credible material to justify an article, that is what must be considered.Classicjupiter2 15:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable artist groups belong in Wikipedia.--Gene_poole 01:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge from this VfD :) and Keep. Radiant_* 13:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we are to have articles about bands which are only notable because one or more of their members were notable (even at a later time), it seems unreasonable not to have an article about such a group as this, several of whose members are currently notable. And kudos to Uppland for his research. --Jonathan Christensen 14:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have now posted articles on Aase Berg and Carl-Michael Edenborg. They can certainly be improved, and I hope someone more knowledgeable about the contemporary Swedish literary scene will come around to do so. / Uppland 16:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Remember, the issue here was not to dismiss the notability of the individual members. Each particular member is notable in their own right, but please remember the quality of the research when someone is going to study surrealism after 1966. Let me remind you all again, It is not the individual members that is being considered for VfD, but the article, The Surrealist Group in Stockholm. In your research, can you find enough solid, credible and notable material on The Stockhlom Surrealist Group? That is what I am asking. As for the various individual members own merits and contributions outside of this collective group, that is all great and I fully support any articles on Carl and Aase, but you need to convince me about this group as a whole. Where did they meet? Where did they exhibit their paintings and works, poetry, writings, pamphlets, etc.? Are there any newspaper articles, or any mention of them in any art media or literary media as, "The Surrealist Group in Stockholm"? Do you understand what I am asking? Again, are there any sources that are credible enough that provide information and material on and about, The Surrealist Group in Stockholm? Uppland, you did an excellent job in your research on the individual members, I need to see what you can find on this group as mentioned as, The Surrealist Group in Stockholm? Do you understand?Classicjupiter2 18:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do I find articles which discuss the group as a whole under that name? Yes, I do. However, most articles which mention the group do it just as part of the description of the background of the individual members, as when an article from 2002 mentions that Aase Berg as new editor of BLM has brought with her the traditions from Stora saltet (the journal of the surrealist group) etc. I still think this makes the group significant. (The group appears to have been most active from the late 1980s through mid 1990s and the newspaper texts I have are more complete for later years.) BTW, I found another writer said to belong to the surrealist group, Maja Lundgren (not mentioned in the VfD'd article), a novelist who is also now published by Bonnier's (and who has had a novel translated into several languages and apparently nominated for the prestigious Italian prize Premio Bancarella). / Uppland 20:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent research, Uppland. Is there any evidence that they are still active? I could be wrong (and I think that I am in this case) but I think they might have broken up in 1998, with various members going their seperate ways while accomplishing their above mentioned works. Now, the key here is to decide that since there exists a consensus to keep this article, how can we further establish the information about this group in a coherent and chronological manner that will help the student who is studying surrealism after 1966 and comes across this particular group? Uppland, I myself looked at their website, and it is beyond me how little information is on there, since its asserted that they were significant (I still want to debate that if you or anyone can produce more quality information on them, like you already have). You see, I need to know, specifically (and precisely), what newspapers, what media, what publications in Sweden or anywhere, specifically report on The Stockholm Surrealist Group or their publication, Stora saltet while they were active? Uppland, when you say, "an article from 2002 mentions that Aase Berg as new editor of BLM has brought with her the traditions from Stora saltet (the journal of the surrealist group) etc. I still think this makes the group significant", can you tell us is this from a newspaper account on Aase Berg that mentions her past activity in this group, and can this newspaper produce any information on this group? Did she say she was in this group? Granted, when a reporter or any writer is doing a piece on Aase, most likely they will contact her directly and ask her about her and her work (and her past) and get a statement from her, but we as encyclopedia researchers are of a different breed of investigative researchers, if Aase is mentioned in any newpaper account as being a past member of this group, is that all what we have to go on? Research is painstaking and at times often tedious but we must present quality information and facts to the world in this encylcopedia. So again, specifically, what newspapers in Sweden have reported on this group while they were active?Classicjupiter2 22:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, saying "while they were active" begs a question. On what basis do you claim they are no longer active? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, you are a surrealist. Please tell us about this group?Classicjupiter2 00:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The admittedly rather superficial research I have done indicates that they are indeed not as active as a group as they were a few years ago (while some individual members are more outwardly visible), but the question here is obviously: why would this matter in any case? Are we to delete the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood or Der Blaue Reiter just because these groups aren't active anymore? / Uppland 19:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that I am out on a limb here, as I am not really familiar with the group or very familiar with contemporary Swedish literature in general. Nevertheless, I have tried to expand the article with the help of some newspaper articles, especially one by another writer who has followed the group from the outside almost since its beginning. There are some texts on their website which should also be used in order to describe the self-image of the group, but they are a bit less straightforward, so I have mostly left them outside for the time being. / Uppland 09:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The research that you have done has provided more quality information to help save this article. Again, the key issue here is information on and/or about this group, The Surrealist Group in Stockholm and their activity in Surrealism. There is good information on the various individual members of this group, their accomplishments, writings, etc.,etc., but we need to see more information on this group as a whole. I recommend to send an E-mail to an expert on Surrealism, Prof.Mary Ann Caws. She is an expert on surrealism and has written books on surrealism and I think she can lead us into a good direction into this particular group of ex-surrealists.Classicjupiter2 00:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to do the research needed to make this into a featured article, but the article as it currently stands is already good enough for Wikipedia, and I have personally no intention to write a dissertation on the Stockholm surrealist group. Uppland 02:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There is plenty of information on the individual members and their work outside of this group, and that really is not relevant to their work in Surrealism while they were active as The Stockholm Surrealist Group. I agree to keep the article, but there needs to be only relevant information on their work in Surrealism, not what they did after this group broke up.Classicjupiter2 03:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point of VfD is just to decide whether an article is good enough to not be deleted, that's all. Further improvement should be discussed elsewhere. You are welcome to contact Prof. Caws, if you think she can help with that. Uppland 06:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are telling me something that I already know. I do not need to contact Prof.Mary Ann Caws, you do! In the meantime, there is a lot of information that you added to the article that needs to be taken out. If you are going to research Surrealism, then research Surrealism! Not what people have done after they abandoned Surrealism! The article is on The Stockholm Surrealist Group.Classicjupiter2 15:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep ~leif ☺ _(talk) 18:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We've seen bunches of these articles on such dime-a-dozen groups. Postdlf 03:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

UL Games Society

A long history of the role-playing society at the University of Limerick, unencyclopedic, delete --nixie 15:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. -- Mwanner 16:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• It's a work in progress and also describes the societies current activities, keep --User:DaxisMarr 16:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure how to use this...we're constantly refining this article & we believe it will be of interest to many people. The society's fame is growing in this area and further afield and a wikipedia article will be useful for us, our members and visitors to our university from other countries. Plus the handful of us who know how to use wiki are cleaning it up whenever we get time. keep --Trumad 16:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Were sorting it out, alot of people are adding to it and not all of them know the rules. Thats gonna change. --Kaiser Sma 16:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep. I am the aforementioned Aaron Smart (the current president of the society). The society is of historical importance to UL and the Students' Union as it is one of the longest-running societies still in existance - many never last longer than a couple of years. And 1989 may not seem that long to some, but the university has only existed since 1972.

Though I think some of the writers have misunderstood the concept of the Wikipedia, and this article is undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia. It shouldn't be deleted, but needs serious clean-up, and I will give warnings to the current authors to read the appropriate rules for entries.--Zilog Jones 17:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Non-encyclopedic and the contents is of atrocious quality. Pavel Vozenilek 17:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that neither of these is grounds for speedy deletion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also note that all the above remarks were made before heavy re-writing of the article; the language previously used in the article was most certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. --Zilog Jones 09:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, note that Pavel said the "contents is of atrocious quality" - he should have used "are of atrocious quality" for the plural of content. I'm not quite sure in what position he is to judge the quality of our English.
• Comment: Please review the article again - it has been heavily revised. If this is still not up to standards I can edit it some more. But regardless, GSoc is a society officially recognised by the UL Students' Union, just like the University of Limerick Debating Union, who also have a Wikipedia entry. Clubs and societies are an important aspect of college life over here, in a similar way to fraternities in colleges in the US --Zilog Jones 20:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to University of Limerick Games Society. Notable student society at a notable university. Aticle has potential for organic growth.Klonimus 20:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. It's not the page is badly written--in fact, it's quite well done. However, we generally don't look for articles on topics this minor or specific (no insult intended, but it is rather fine-grained). The problem with this criteria is that it varies from user to user, and we've never been able to agree on a definition that we could put on paper. So it's kind of confusing. I think the best thing to do would be to create a section in the college's article entitled "Student Activities" or something of that nature, and expand that. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 20:40, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apart from personal bias (can anyone really explain why a bunch of Irish students going 'Arr, I'm a goblin' is more notable than a business that employs 150 people, or a scientist publishing important new research and lecturing to over 150 students is? Really? I mean, seriously, is the chair of this society more important to the university than a professor of physics? Did anyone join the university thinking 'the course is crap, but they have a good roleplaying society?'). I'm of the opinion that this is vanity, and an over inflated sense of ones importance in the scheme of things. I was a chair of a society at University (and one that had more active members than this one) and while it's a good way to pass the evening and all that, I wouldn't think of creating an article for it. This deserves at best one line in a section on societies at the University. Want to know more? Look at the University webpage. Average Earthman 20:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (and condense) as per Meelar. People studying at UL or visiting UL have more specific resources they can use to find out about student societies. FreplySpang (talk) 20:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes the "U.S. villages" notability threshold (or, as another editor has it, the Pokemon test). And that has nothing to do with my own roots in Ballyneety. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Good points Meelar and FreplySpang. If there was more imformation on the UL Students' Union and other student activities in UL, the article may seem more significant though. I might add some more to the UL page on this, but I couldn't say much.

There's still the fact that the Debating Union also have an article and no one has complained about that as of yet, and I'm sure many other clubs and societies from other colleges also have entries (Trinity College Dublin do, but they are kinda of more importance than ours, being several centuries old and all).

Maybe the person who started this article was being a bit too "bold", but I think it would be good for historical posterity. Imformation on clubs & soc's here from before the Students' Union building was built around 1998, is pretty much non-existant, and for all I know the society will be long forgotten in a few years after I leave.

And Average Earthman, who ever said this was more important than other aspects of UL? It's not my fault that few want to write articles on the academic aspects of the univesity, but I'm sure in time there will be more --Zilog Jones 21:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Not only do few want to write articles on academics, most of them would get deleted on the grounds of 'average professor'.Average Earthman 12:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• condense and merge to university of limerick. There are currently approximately 120 members of the society says "notable as part of UL, not notable on it's own" to me. BigFatDave 22:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment: Yes, but that's only the numbers for this year, and membership only lasts one year. If you add up all the members over the years, it must be somewhere around 500-800, if not more. --Zilog Jones 22:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment: What the article still needs, and would work towards it's defense, is the information about some of it's other national events such as TRICON 2001. With regards to the impression of role playing, there are already a ton of articles on the subject. It's not necisarily more important than a business that 'employs' 150 people, but we often have had more than 200 members sign up in a year. A perfect encyclopedia would contain information on such things. It's not intended to be vain or over emphisised, there's just more information available on it then alot of things of similar importance. We do have a budget in the thousands and vanity pages according to the tutorial pages are personal as opposed to an orginisation.--Kaiser Sma 23:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment: In further reference to average earthman's comment, alot of people (right or wrong) have put a considerable amount of effort into this society, many people do join UL in part for it's clubs and societies. I know many people who have spent considerably more time and effort into making them work then their respective studies. This was not made as information for potential students, it was made because we believed it deserved a permenant reference. Most of the people involved in it's construction are graduates as well.--Kaiser Sma 23:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone putting effort into something does not make it notable, and I've been both treasurer and chairman of a student society with more members than this one claims so I'm not totally clueless on how they work. Average Earthman 17:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, not encyclopedic. Cleduc 02:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this society has its own website (where they are boasting about being in wikipedia), so this information in available to interested parties. Wikipedia is not the sum of all mundane information, it should be an encyclopedia. There a a role-playing society, and anime society and infinite religious and sporting groups at every university, some of these may be valid long-running clubs that have hade members of note and are suitable for an encyclopedia, but most aren't, you're looking at one of the unencyclopedic ones here. Just because an effort has been made to make it look good does not make it a worthy addition. Next thing you know we'll have set a precendent for allowing every Lions and Rotary club and every scout troupe a page.--nixie 02:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not look notable to me. Indrian 04:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too young and non-notable society. Mention it in the article on the university, perhaps. / Uppland 05:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, truly non-notable. Only affects (approximately) 120 people, it admits that there is little or no information about it before 2000. "The society was allegedly founded in 1987." Also, authors making comments please restrict youself to one vote. --bainer 05:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Condense. I authored part of this page and had come here to post a 'keep' message but having read all points and examining other society entries I feel it would be more appropriate for a shortened version of our entry to be posted on the University of Limerick entry. --The Cardinal 11:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Bainer, I don't see anyone here making multiple votes. I removed that comment on our website - I do not think it was appropriate. I thought this whole thing wasn't too appropriate for the Wikipedia, but if this does get deleted I also propose other insignificant student clubs and societies be deleted too. --Zilog Jones 13:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! If you can find them, by all means add them to VfD. -- Mwanner 14:04, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but condense greatly - a stub at best. Djegan 18:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why not? It's of use to people who might want to find out more about the society. Isn't wikipedia a gathering of imformation?--Richy 20:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment: Bainer, you're wrong on two counts (as far as I can tell). You say the society only affects 120 people. We won the best improved society of the year, as voted by all the other clubs and societies in the university. We have 120 members at the minute, as Zilog Jones said - but 600-800 past members and goodness knows how many in the future. We're involved with other universities in paintball competitions, wargames and some sci-fi interests. (so not just role-playing). You also said people were voting twice, which I would have picked up on straightaway had it been there.

The person who started the article (me) did indeed not realise what he had started. I wanted an encyclopedic account of my favourite society, and one which I believe affects enough people to warrant a wiki article. If I looked it up (and found there wasn't a page there) how many other people would try? Another point of information - societies are asked by the university staff to set up stands during open days. This is to "show off" the clubs and societies to prospective students. Many students frequently do choose one university over another because of a better list of societies, if they can do their course at either. Trumad 21:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly "affects" more people than just its members, it's of possible interest to other members of the Irish gaming community, and perhaps to the UL "societies crowd" in general. However, I'd certainly rename, as per Klonimus, and trim excess detail, as per several contributers. Alai 02:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually, I withdraw my last statement. What defines a club or society as "significant" is too vague and discretionary, and could even be verging on discriminatory in some cases. It's not exactly hurting or degrading the Wikipedia by having such entries. Though as others have said, we may decimate some sections of it - as it stands now, it's already bigger than the actual UL article! --Zilog Jones 09:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, every university has a game society. Radiant_* 13:51, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: That's not necessarily true, and I don't see any reason not to mention these other societies if they have anything to write about. That's a rather pointless remark. You do know you don't have to read it if it doesn't interest you! --Zilog Jones 14:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Every University having a game society is no reason to delete the article. Trumad 21:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Doubt it needs to be as big as it is though. Kiand 18:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Societies were one of the main reasons I entered my university (for the great friends and such that I have made) and to be able to see GSoc and read its history is very important to me. Sergeant Horse 20:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment: In response to the many calls for shortening of the article, we can merge the four eras (or generations) of gsoc history into one medium sized paragraph. Anything to keep the article here. We all believe it is of benefit to many people, as has been shown above. Trumad 21:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Student organizations are non-notable in all but a very few exceptional cases. Isomorphic 03:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Surely it's time you made some sort of decision on this and how harmful it's being to wikipedia? hmm? Trumad 06:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, But cutbacks acceptable As it stands this page take up less space than "List of countries that only border one other country", and I found it far more informative to boot. Indeed, i believe more people would have more interest in this article that "Exceller" the useless racehorse for example, which takes up enough space for this article 3 times over

• comment okay, it's well over a week now. have you guys made a decision yet? if it's going to be kept we'll do some work on it. If you're gonna delete it we'll not bother. Just please tell us so that we can make this article even better. If you don't remove the notice or delete the entry within (another) 5 days we'll remove the deletion notice ourselves. Thankyou. Trumad 22:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Er, I don't think you should do that!! An admin has to give a verdict first, AFAIK. --Zilog Jones 21:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If they keep us in suspense for this long and then delete it I'll be very annoyed indeed. There are enough people here saying "keep" to warrant keeping the article on wikipedia, and not enough "deleters" to care enough to actually delete it after 5 days. Therefore, vis a vis, they have no right to delete it. Trumad 15:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think you understand. An admin has to make the decision. Read the rules! --Zilog Jones 15:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:36, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Max Rayne

A non-notable dormitory. I suggest we delete this article, unless someone shows how this is more notable than an average student house. jni 15:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find any indication of notability online. -- Mwanner 16:13, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem notable. Martg76 17:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn -- Cleduc 17:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A 40 year old building which students sleep in. They really aren't of any interest at all (I should know, I was a student for long enough). Average Earthman 20:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like an attack about the way they ask their rent. Let's ask editors at Talk:University College London to verify and merge if needed, otherwise delete. Mgm|^(talk) 20:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Aiken

• Delete. Unnecessary; half of it isn't even about him. 65.164.16.77 16:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Survivorcruft, and reads like a stream of consciousness blog entry. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Famous for 15 seconds, and an unreadable article to boot. Average Earthman 20:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article is episode summary, not article about Ryan. Mgm|^(talk) 20:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not even an episode summary, it's a summary of one person's failures in every episode. RickK 21:22, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, players voted out on the first episode deserve at most a brief mention in a season summary, not their own page. Shimmin 00:12, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable participant. Megan1967 05:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candy Girl

Another SamuraiClinton special. The complete contents of the article (minus headers): "Candy Girl is a song from the 1960's. New Edition made a totally different song with the same title. As of 2004 some rap/hip hop artist recorded a song that interpolated some lyrics and some sequence from the song. (Pop culture occurences) In some commercial for Applebee's." Pointless. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if it's a real song. Or is the author actually thinking of "Sugar, Sugar" by The Archies? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a real song -- I believe the original referred to is by Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, and I remember when the New Edition song of the same title came out, but does this mean that every song title belongs in Wikipedia if a) two or more songs with that title exist, b) "some rap/hip hop artist" samples it, and c) it gets used in "some commercial"? In my mind, that's just not enough to distinguish it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons since they are the group most closely associated with the song and there really isn't enough here for a separate article. LevelCheck 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge and redirect to the album it's on. Meelar (talk) 20:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect to artist or album. -Avocado 20:59, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • RaD Man's argument has changed my mind. keep and disambig. Avocado 22:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete SamuraiClintocruft. Where would it possibly be merged and redirected to? RickK 21:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on general principle. There isn't anything here to keep, merge or anything. I've left a stern note on Samurai's talk page. I'm going on record right here and say that if this user leaves just one more of these diddlysquat articles, I'm going to pursue other solutions to this problem. - Lucky 6.9 22:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What "other solutions"? That he needs to get permission from someone else before creating a new article? That's the only thing I can think of that would stop him. Firebug 01:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I admit I like that idea. Sorry I wasn't clear, though. What I meant was, I'm considering opening an arbitration case against SamuraiClinton if this keeps up. - Lucky 6.9 07:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Unless there is something even mildly interesting about these two songs besides having the same title... — RJH 00:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. The original version (Frankie Valli & Four Seasons) is reasonably well known and is played all the time on the oldies stations, so it deserves a redirect. SamuraiClinton should have made this a redirect, not an article. Firebug 01:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Frankie Valli. SamuraiClinton is rather fond of these individual-song nanostubs; I would suggest foregoing the VfD process on any more of these creations and just redirecting to the relevant artist, as I have done with Jump Around. It'll save a lot of work for the admins. android↔talk 02:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Frankie Valli. Megan1967 05:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My initial reaction was to suggest a redirect, but given that two different artists have released a song by the same name, my vote is to keep and disambiguate. Redirection is not in the best interest of the prospective reader. —RaD Man (talk) 23:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Razzle Dazzle Football

Unencyclopædic, few Google hits. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I think. From the page Just have fun, that's what it's all about. If it's a game that has no rules, why does it take so long to describe? While readable, the article makes it sound like it is a way to get a date rather then being a serious game. Vegaswikian 22:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hardly verifiable, contributed by an anon. Google hits show little relevance to what the article describes. Mikkalai 03:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and redirect to Calvinball. Radiant_* 13:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yorkshire County Cricket Club in 2005

Nn. LevelCheck 20:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a nascent article that will chronicle Yorkshire's 2005 season. Yorkshire are an English first-class cricket team. Clearly encyclopaedic, jguk 20:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would say keep, but I'd hate to think what the article will look like when it's finished, if each match has that much level of detail. RickK 21:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I say Keep too, but agree with RickK that this series of articles will be very large at the end of the season if they continue in the current style.Sc147 00:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like Simpson's episode guides in Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 03:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oliver Chettle 23:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with RickK and Sc147. —RaD Man (talk) 23:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps the most influential provincial cricket team in England but should be edited in more economical style. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

William P. Clements High School

This article about a high school is not notable.

Perhaps Merge some of the into the town article? I am not sure. - Stoph 20:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notable public school opened to the public in 1983. Every school is worthy of inclusion in a truely great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 20:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it would probably be best if some references were cited to validate claims of excellence (or tone down the POV). —RaD Man (talk) 20:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Stoph appears to have been created one week ago. *sigh* —RaD Man (talk) 21:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: is that relevant? I honestly wasn't aware that it was. - Stoph 22:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge to the town's entry, and delete. Not all schools are notable! Mine wasn't, and this one is no better. BigFatDave 22:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: perhaps making VfD pages about schools isn't worth it when opinions are divided on this subject, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/schools and Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools - Stoph 22:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD is applicable exactly because opinions are divided on this subject. If they weren't, it would be WP:CSD material. Also, delete as vanity. Radiant_* 13:54, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, relax and accomodate [16], decent-sized article about a high school. Kappa 23:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please, very well written and too large to merge. is this for real? Yuckfoo 01:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. This is an encyclopedia not a directory. Indrian 04:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Indrian. --The JPS 10:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep quite a decent article. - SimonP 12:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Remove the filler material and we're left with the first two sentences and an external link. Note that, as usual, there was also an attempt to stack the vote on this vfd. [17] —Korath (Talk) 14:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 14:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing jawdropping here. Grue 20:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "swimming teams (boys and girls) often colour their hair wild and eccentric colours." Lots of notability in this... not really. Delete. --Idont Havaname 21:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oliver Chettle 23:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable public institution.--Gene_poole 00:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually a pretty good article in need of a POVectomy. I'd like to see a little more on the history of the place as well. - Lucky 6.9 05:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 06:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Sugar Land, Texas and delete - Skysmith 08:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and should be heavily edited to remove obvious POV still present. -CunningLinguist 02:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with everything Gamaliel said. Jonathunder 04:09, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand, as we have been doing. I've removed unverifiable and POV information. High schools do not need to prove notability. --BaronLarf 01:48, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Cedars 06:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is User:Cedar's 46th edit. The owner of this account immediately gravitated towards VfD-related activity by the 10th edit. [18] [19] —RaD Man (talk) 10:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cedars has been a user since Feb 1. Surely that's long enough for his/her votes to be valid? Gamaliel 22:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand for more useful info on the school. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl ^(talk) 15:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep invalid vfd listing, its a sockpuppet likely created just to list this.  ALKIVAR™ 09:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment being called a sock puppet is disheartening - Stoph 20:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please Don't bite the newbies. Gamaliel 22:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Houshuang 01:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. This is an encyclopedia not a directory. Master Thief Garrett 01:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 19:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Livonia Mall

Delete. Article does not provide more information than title. It's a mall, it's in Livonia. FreplySpang (talk) 20:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• article manages to establish NON-NOTABILITY. This mall is frequently shopped at. It has been around for several decades and at one time, was a unique shopping mall. I would guess that the origin of this article is the link to Livona Mall in the Livonia, Michigan article. I'm going to pre-emptively yank another mall redlink to prevent further silliness. BigFatDave 22:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, "unique" makes it notable. Kappa 23:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Er ... how, exactly? I'm unique. As are you. Uncle G 01:17, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    • If it was "unique" in that sense, it would still be so. Kappa 03:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • My confusion is stemming from the fact that it isn't apparent to me from the text of the article in what sense the mall actually was unique. The article baldly states the mall was, at one time, unique. It doesn't say how it was unique. Is it merely saying that it was, at one time, the only shopping mall in Livonia, Michigan? Or was it unique for some other reason (such as, say, being the only shopping mall painted bright fluorescent orange throughout)? Uncle G 04:07, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    • As I suspected, it was unique at least in the sense that "at one time, was the only shopping mall in Livonia". Kappa 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps your vote should be discounted on the grounds that it makes absolutely no sense. Gamaliel 01:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, The mall is worth making an article about, I am sure google will find results about it. Just do more google testing to find out if it is a keeper. --SuperDude 00:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability established. If this mall truly deserves an article, there wouldn't be any big loss if the current article were deleted – the description there could be applied to just about any American mall. android↔talk 02:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 03:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Isn't it strange how SuperDude115 stepped in to put in a "keep" vote on yet another SamuraiClinton Michigan nanostub...? Lucky smells socks. - Lucky 6.9 07:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I tried adding something to it to make it not just a redundant "generic mall" label, but I agree there's not much reason to keep it now (other than Wikipedia is not paper), so I'm counting on people who live around there to add to it. It does serve a city of a 100,000, after all. -- Natalinasmpf 17:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, screamingly non-notable. Slac speak up! 01:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Malls are generally non-notable. Gamaliel 01:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe make a mention in Livonia, Michigan and delete - Skysmith 08:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Another mall? Delete them all. The world's that small. Now curtain, fall. Radiant_* 13:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• If Skysmith wants to mention this in the Livonia, MI article, we can redirect to Livonia, MI. Otherwise just keep if you find more intriguing details. --SuperDude 03:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You already voted. android↔talk 03:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Jonathunder 04:12, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Inconsequential. Postdlf 09:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mineral at the University of Toronto

Ad. LevelCheck 20:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The title is clearly wrong, and the article itself is adspeak. I would recommend merging into the University of Toronto article, but there's nothing to merge. Delete. RickK 21:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I object to articles on individual college programs. Belongs on the school website, not in an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 21:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant advertising. Firebug 01:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hotspot Software and Aradial

Adertising. RickK 22:04, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• del. nonnotable. Mikkalai 04:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Note also that the same anon(s) has been adding advertising links to RADIUS and Billing. See also Access Point, which probably also falls under this VFD. sjorford →•← 16:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've redirected Access Point to Wireless access point. sjorford →•← 15:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Da Gooniez

Delete as vanity. "eagerly anticipated first album" indeed FreplySpang (talk) 22:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as British wannabes. By the way, one of these fake rappers just deleted my original vote. Isn't that grounds to block them from editing? CPS 23:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Only if they repeat their actions. JamesBurns 03:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Hi, sorry, as the creator of the post I'm totally new to Wikipedia. I admit as a fan of the group I may have used over exhuberant descriptions, however consider that edited! Sorry about deleting the vote, I tried to type this comment between the two comments (it originally only refered to the first vote) and accidently deleted the block of text. I do, however think that this 'fake rapper' accusation is slightly inflammatory, and innacurate. Just to clear up some confusion you may have, the group consist of two producers, not rappers. I'm not really sure how much knowledge of hip hop you have, but the two things are fundamentally different. I also find the 'wannabees' comment slightly offensive, unless you have knowledge of the group and their rather large (albiet underground) following, it's unfair for you to typecast them in such a way. Again, however, apologies for deleting the original comment, I hope my open admission and full apology of this will stop me from being banned from editing! Ianwarren
  • Hi Ianwarren. Please assume that Vfd voters known less than nothing about hip-hop. If you want them to be kept, you need to show some evidence of popularity or notability, maybe they collaborated with someone famous? Kappa 23:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability; criteria in WP:MUSIC apparently not met. "Da Gooniez" garners 0 relevant Google hits. There appear to be hip-hop groups in New Jersey and Atlanta that go by the same name, however. android↔talk 02:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. Mikkalai 04:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Da Goonies" doesn't appear to get relevant hits either. The claims in the article are not verifiable. Delete. Samaritan 07:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to The Goonies, movie by LucasFilm. Radiant_* 13:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Danson Stables

Advertising. RickK 22:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, advertising. Cleduc 02:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. Mikkalai
• Delete. Advertising (mention of ex stable block in main Danson House entry. Paul W 09:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Danson Stable is an historic building (now unfortunately a pub) associate with Dansion Mansion, located in Danson Park.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Constance E. Cumbey

Non-notable crank, vanity by the same person who keeps vandalizing the Javier Solana and has made legal threats against other Users. RickK 23:04, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Not sure if she is a religious crank, but she gets hundreds of google hits and is a published author. — RJH 00:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia cranks are not notable. Firebug 01:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey (talk · contribs) is inserting All actual antichrist statements came from SqueakBox, a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. in the text, which is an attack against another user, not acceptable in an article itself, though not the first time either, --SqueakBox 02:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Constance Cumbey is a crank, but she's a pretty well known crank. (Solana is the antichrist, indeed...) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficiently notable. -- 8^D ^gab 03:28, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Comment. Is lawyer Constance E. Cumbey the same person who has been making legal threats against other users over Javier Solana? Cumbey apparently is an editor on wikipedia, see User:Cumbey. If so I would be inclined to vote delete on the grounds of vanity. Megan1967 05:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So would I, but I'd caution that we cannot be absolutely sure that it's her. The nature of Wikipedia is such that anybody can claim to be anybody. While I believe that User:Cumbey most likely is the author Constance Cumbey, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. There's a small possibility that some crank has stolen her identity and used it on Wikipedia. David Cannon 15:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow," the title of her 1983 religious tract on "our Coming Age of Barbarism", still gets 1740 Google web hits and 256 Usenet. She's definitely sufficiently notable. Keep. Samaritan 06:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not vanity if it's created by someone else. Check the history - someone else created this article, and the Herb Peters article, and also edited in Antichrist. If we're deleting this article, then Herb Peters article should go too. BTW, no one would have noticed it if the bonehead that created it hadn't have posted in Javier Solana.... KC9CQJ 09:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If it is created by an anonymous user (as is this case), it would be hard to say that it was or wasnt created by Cumbey. Megan1967 10:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep I actually own one of her books (The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow) which I thought might be worth a few good laughs....sadly, it was far too crankish for me to bother. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Crank or not, subject is sufficiently notable. ElBenevolente 16:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. According to my IP locator the anon who created this article is from Rochester New Hampshire, making it extremely unlikely to be a vanity page. Note that User:Cumbey, who clearly knows about the Vfd from her edits on the article, has not voted either way, so I don't believe it is a vanity page, --SqueakBox 16:29, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. Ejrrjs | What? 21:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep She might be in desperate need of a good shrink, but obviously, she's notable enough. And hey, we have articles on flat earth, so what? -- AlexR 10:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep -- you'll all wish you'd have heeded her when you meet Solana in Armaggedon, but it will be too late then! too late! dab (ᛏ) 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Noteworthy for her Christian based exposure of the New Age in the mid eighties. Though author ia also a wiki user she cannot control content of this article (ie her statements about herself were removed as being unsourced, --SqueakBox 15:11, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I think wikipedia should also cover more obscure topics. Maybe someone should start a heading titled "Cumbey and Legal Threats" I have also been taageted and been accused of threats, as well as being named as SqueakBox's SockPuppet --Hierarchypedia 17:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now - and add the information that a Wikipedian claiming to be her has been making legal threats against other users. David Cannon 15:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:25, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Latoya langford

• Delete. Not notable. Fifteen minutes of fame seem like 14 minutes too many, let's not immortalize her. Google hits, 4 (some of which may not refer to the same Latoya Langford). -- Mwanner 23:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — not a notable individual — RJH 00:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, played an important character in Napoleon Dynamite. Failing that, merge. Kappa 03:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Oops wrong Vfd Kappa 04:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral (subject to restoration of article text). She was not a credited cast member in Napoleon Dynamite according to the Internet Movie Database. You may be thinking of Shondrella Avery, who was in Napoleon Dynamite but has her own vote for deletion going on now.

This comment appears to be posted on the wrong vote page. -- Mwanner 13:36, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Curtis E. McCall

• Delete. Not notable. Vanity. He's president of a small movie theater chain. Google hits: 8. -- Mwanner 23:39, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable. Searching Google for his name without the middle initial returns many more relevant results. TigerShark 00:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Mm, no, I tried it. Of the 238 hits for "Curtic McCall", a great many of them appear to be for people other than the cinema minimogul (including a heavily-referenced academic). Delete.DS 13:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not sure of the exact proportions but 18 of the first 30 results seem to relate to this individual. Also this search returned 88. Of course simply getting a lot of hits on Google doesn't guarantee notability, but I just wanted to raise the point that the count seems to be significantly higher than the initial estimate of 8. Cheers. TigerShark 14:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notability. Megan1967 11:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He Flew Like a Madman

Non-notable. TigerShark 23:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge in the last line in the appropriate section of Minor characters associated with Quidditch, then delete. — 130.76.32.15 00:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, WP:FICT. Radiant_* 13:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:19, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Scott Campbell

Article does not establish notability. "Scott Campbell" +"Double Fine" returns 24 Google hits. RickK 23:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence of notability given. Meelar (talk) 23:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to J. Scott Campbell, given nobody else comes to mind. Chris talk back 21:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mackensen (talk) 15:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Independent studios

This is basically just a list of Pokemon movies. A list of independent studios already exists at List of Hollywood movie studios, and a description of independent cinema and how independent films are produced exists at Independent film. This article should be redirected to Independent film. The list of movies is not worth merging or keeping.--Plainsong 00:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as suggested. -- 8^D ^gab 01:37, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Redirect to Independent film. Megan1967 05:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge is the verdict. --208.183.105.11 14:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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