Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE to List of street names of drugs. Jmabel is invited to write an article about street name in the financial sense. dbenbenn | talk 07:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Street name[edit]

Thanks Niteowlneils :-) This is a list of street names of drugs. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide and the article is a plain list without encyclopedic contents. Moreover, important street names are already covered in the articles of the respective drugs and can be found using the search function. Delete and update Wiktionary. Cacycle 21:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Either keep this content at this page, or move it over to List of street names of drugs. Of the two lists, this one was certainly done better. --Idont Havaname 00:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, move street name to List of street names of drugs after deleting the latter. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We should have an article on "street name" in the non-drug sense. Some owners of shares of publicly traded companies choose to have their stock held in the name of their broker-dealer rather than in their own name. The issuing company sends dividend checks, annual reports, etc., to the broker-dealer instead of directly to the shareholder. Such stock is said to be held in street name. Googling for "street name" +stock produces more than 70,000 hits. I'd say: move this content to List of street names of drugs, then make street name a stub about the financial meaning, with a note directing people to the drug article. JamesMLane 08:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 8 keep, 3 redirect, 6 delete.

I'm going to merge the more complete list from Street name to List of street names of drugs. dbenbenn | talk 07:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of street names of drugs[edit]

This is a list of street names of drugs. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide and the article is a plain list without encyclopedic contents. Moreover, important street names are already covered in the articles of the respective drugs. Delete or move to Wiktionary. Cacycle 19:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Orginal research, impossible to verify. As Cacycle said, important street names are already covered in the articles of the respective drugs. Neutralitytalk 19:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Street name. Niteowlneils 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the reasons given by others. --BM 22:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valuable resource on a distinctly notable subject.--Centauri 00:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Keep. Samaritan 04:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations, needs expansion (IMO lists that have little explanation aren't very useful). Megan1967 01:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Perhaps wikislangdictionary?--BenWilson 17:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete any new information should be merged with the respective drug articles kaal 17:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Keep and cleanup; notability is established. --Idont Havaname 00:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:28, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Queg[edit]

Together with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Seshing and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Munchies this is a non-encyclopedic slang definition related to cannabis use. Moreover there is not a single hit on Google for "queg cannabis" that is related to the provided meaning. Delete. Cacycle 18:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I feel that deleting this article is unjustified. It accurately represents the definition of queg that me and many of the people I know would consider to be the correct one, and there have been no contesting definitions. (this is a left-over from an earlier attempt to vote for deletion of this page made by 82.32.54.39) (cacycle)
  • The first thing that came to mind is that Queg is the name of the Captain from the Caine Mutiny, although it is usually spelled Queeg. Amusing the trivia one acquires. I think it also serves as an abbreviation for "Quadrophonic Effects Generator". — RJH 19:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This Definition is not nonsense, and is used widely by hundreds of British. Therefore marking it for deletion is unneccessary. 80.235.142.51 22:50, 2004 Dec 5 (transferred from article Uncle G 01:54, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC))
  • I've heard of "seshes" and "the munchies". But obviously I'm not in the select few hundred people on the entire planet that have heard of "quegg". Do they all live in the same bedsit in North London, perchance? It's no wonder that it's a mess. Unlike the other two, this is not Wiktionary material because there is no evidence of actual use. So simply Delete. Uncle G 01:54, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete We are not a dictionary. --BenWilson 17:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If verified, transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless it is real, in which case we should transwiki to Wiktionary. Bart133 (t) 01:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Wiktionary. Joyous 03:31, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Munchies[edit]

Together with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Seshing and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Queg this is a non-encyclopedic slang definition related to cannabis use (simply meaning 'increased appetite'). Delete or move to Wiktionary. Cacycle 19:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Wiktionary, actually the term is used quite often in reality and on films. Megan1967 01:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be a one-sentence parenthetical addition to cannabis in the "physical effects" section. And the term is often used as a simple synonym for hunger, unrelated to drug use. Wiktionary or Delete. Uncle G 01:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete we are not a dictionary. --BenWilson 17:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary -- Jmabel | Talk 08:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Added to Wiktionary under wikt:Munchies. Revise Wiktionary page then delete this one. Andrew pmk 00:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Seshing[edit]

Together with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Queg and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Munchies this is a non-encyclopedic slang definition related to cannabis use. No references are given. Delete or move to Wiktionary. Cacycle 19:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The cannabis is obviously having the listed deleterious side-effects on the author's memory. "Sesh" is just a slang term for any type of "session", not just the one that the article claims. One can have a "drinking sesh", or a "sesh in front of the telly", for example. Wiktionary, or Delete if Wiktionary rejects such a slanted and badly written dictionary definition. Uncle G 01:40, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete we are not a dictionary --BenWilson 17:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even worthy of Wiktionary. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:32, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. give me a break. --Avriette

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 07:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reveal_Codes[edit]

  • Delete. The information in this page is found in the WordPerfect page. Therefore, this page should have been merged. --BenWilson 04:14, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • So what is your reason to request deletion rather than redirect? (no vote yet) Rossami (talk) 05:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I opine the need to leave a redirect exists when there may be other pages that point to the page in question. I did a intra-wiki Google search and found two pages that contain "reveal code;" WordPerfect and Corel_WordPerfect. Of these pages, the latter redirects to the former. Therefore, only one page WordPerfect links to the page in question. As there is only one page presently linking to the page in question, there appears to be no need for redirect.--BenWilson 06:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Additionally, the information presented in the page in question exists in WordPerfect. Therefore, since the information exists elsewhere, there is no need for this page.--BenWilson 06:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pointless branch, but an article title likely to be used. And at least it isn't a mis-spelling, a search-engineism, or simply ungrammatic like pope hat. There is nothing to merge, so Redirect to WordPerfect. Uncle G 16:22, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WordPerfect. Megan1967 01:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 07:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jim Taricani[edit]

Non-notable reporter. Reporters get imprisoned for failure to reveal their sources all the time. RickK 00:02, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Not in the US they don't (or at least I haven't heard about it and I would be shocked). Philip 03:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know what kind of fascist dictatorship you currently live in, but this sort of thing makes this guy notable AFAIAC. 7,000+ Google hits. sjorford:// 00:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? The personal attack is not acceptable. I did not say that I approve of it, merely pointed out that it happens all the time. RickK 00:14, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • <mumble>Please note I didn't call you a fascist. I don't even think you're a fascist. I'm not even sure I've met a real fascist. It was a sort of joke...</mumble> sjorford:// 00:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems sufficiently notable (even in a fascist dictatorship) :) TigerShark 00:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 7,820 Google hits for "Jim Taricani" most of which seem to be for this journalist. [1]

Reuters has done a story on imprisonment of journalists mentioning this guy. [2]

    • Opops forgot to sign. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not 7,820 hits. You need to click through the Google toward the end. There are only 297 English links. Most are either links to news articles where the media discuss the issue surrounding his incarceration--which is reasonable considering it is in their field.--BenWilson 17:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable therefore keep Fuzz 01:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • please keep this article. Yuckfoo 01:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I would hope a journalist jailed for not revealing sources is still notable. --Lee Hunter 01:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:39, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously notable. --Centauri 01:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sounds rather notable to me. --TIB (talk) 03:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, RickK is right. This does happen all the time - yes, even in the US. (Perhaps especially in the US where the protections that journalists enjoy encourage them to push the line.) Delete. This one event is not, in my opinion, enough to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. It might be an appropriate article in WikiNews, though. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Media beat-up. No evidence of notability. This guy would also be in trouble with Australian laws if he did the same thing here, just BTW, and I'm sure the usual media advocates would organise much the same campaign. Andrewa 12:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I thought it was notable, and Wikipedia was the first place I thought to look for this information. --Sdfisher 15:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The latest edits to this article have made me even more concerned that its inclusion is politically biased. See the talk page. Andrewa 20:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A biographical article should mention birth-dates, accomplishments, etc. When someone finds himself writing an article about a person that just mentions one fact about him, in this case one fact that is currently in the news, it should trigger the question: should I be writing an article about this person, should I be looking for an article into which I can insert the one interesting fact about him, or should I be writing a new article on Journalistic ethics, Freedom of the press (which already exist in this case) which might be a suitable place to mention this information? If you decide one of the latter and mention the person in an existing or new general article, a Google search on your guy will probably turn up that place. It isn't necessary to have an article dedicated to him. We need to have some kind of concept of an "index". Encyclopedias have them. Redirect pages don't quite work the same way. It shouldn't be necessary to keep proliferating one-fact articles, when all we really need is the ability to index mentions of people and things in other articles. --BM 22:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 00:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Jonathunder 04:11, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete This fellow is not notable. Granted, his circumstances might be exceptional, but that does not merit his having an entry by himself. Rather, he should be included in an article discussing the sort of occurance he is allegedly known for. Ghandi is notable. Mandella is notable. Jimmy boy here, is not.--BenWilson 17:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable on his own to warrant having his own article. If his main claim to fame is that particluar incident I dont see why it can't be written as a paragraph within Journalistic ethics. Megan1967 05:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others have said, the incident is notable, the person is not. Merge the information to Journalistic ethics or Freedom of the press or some-such article. — Asbestos | Talk 15:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable because of the incident. Gamaliel 21:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless this is proved false. What is said here seems sufficient to establish notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable controversy. I believe there's a federal bill winding its way through Congress prompted by this guy's situation. — Gwalla | Talk 04:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Overwhelmingly strong keep. Allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 18:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guitar.com Misc[edit]

A message board - there's millions of them, and we certainly don't need articles on them all. <withering-sarcasm>Although apparently this one created most internet fads.</withering-sarcasm> sjorford:// 00:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising for a non-notable website. Rje 00:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. nn. Yuckfoo 01:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The website itself is actually fairly well known but there's no reason to have an article on this one message board on the site (although with half a million posts it does seem to be the most popular part). --Lee Hunter 01:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, website advertisement. Megan1967 03:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ComCat.
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fortenberry Fit[edit]

Probable insult of someone called Fortenberry. No hits on Google. --Lee Hunter 01:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Content before blanking:

A random act of verbal agression generally marked by excessive sensitivity and impulsive changes of mood. These displays are a fit of rage or hysteria with pronounced dominance. These episodes are common in the Fortenberry genealogy. The term used seems to have originated in Texas as expression similar to conniption.
  • delete. Mikkalai 04:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Antandrus 04:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insult, neologism. jni 11:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke, possibly malicious, by anon with no previous contributions (but one since). No useful content or history. Andrewa 12:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this insult. Bart133 (t) 01:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antonio Domenico Viraldini[edit]

Delete. This Viraldini guy probably didn't even exist and Antandrus's word and evidence have convinced me that it is probably a hoax which spread across various places on the Internet. Marcus2 00:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Thanks Marcus. While it's already marked as a copyvio, and thus likely on Wikipedia death row already, maybe VfD is a way to eradicate it permanently, since it's certainly a hoax. To save everyone the trouble of going there, here is my commentary from the Viraldini talk page:
I strongly suspect that Antonio Domenico Viraldini never existed; this is a hoax, and one which has acquired an unusually wide internet existence.
There is no entry in the complete 20-volume Grove, either the 1980 edition or the 2001 online edition, for the allegedly famous composer (nor is there an entry for his allegedly famous teacher Carlo Tortora). Anyone who wrote 114 cantatas, and who was a prominent figure in Venice at that time, would have several pages devoted to him in this most thorough and monumental of all music reference works. Not only is there no entry, there is not even a single text occurrence of the word "Viraldini" in the online Grove.
As if that's not enough, there is no mention of this composer in Baker's Biographical Dictionary (Slonimsky); the Oxford Companion to Music; Bukofzer's Music in the Baroque era; and most importantly, there is not a single mention of this allegedly famous violinist in Selfridge-Fields' definitive and comprehensive Venetian Instrumental Music; indeed I cannot find a single mention of him in any of the books in my substantial library.
When you start to check out the Google links in detail, you find evidence that one person promoted him wildly in 2003, referring to two web sites with closely related "biographies". Most everything else that Google turns up is a mirror of Wikipedia content.
If he were a "recent discovery" there would be some hits at respected musicology organizations; there are none.
All right, I've gone on enough; this article is not only a copyvio, it is a copyvio of a hoax. Antandrus 05:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's currently no article text; the only thing on the page is the VfD notice. This, my friends, is therefore speedyable. Bearcat 03:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, article has no content. Megan1967 03:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment — it used to have a copyvio tag on it, but Marcus replaced it with a VfD tag; if you want to see the article, it's in the history (but was zapped, as is usual, by the placement of the copyvio tag). Antandrus 03:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • delete no such person in other encyclopedias.. Mozzerati 15:02, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • delete for nonverifiability Tuf-Kat 17:04, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 7 delete, 6 redirect. I'm going to redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 08:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proof that 1 = 2[edit]

This is already covered at Invalid proof under examples. Delete, nothing to merge that isn't already there. ÅrУnT†∈ 02:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats great. Require someone to understand the answer when searching for the question. - Taxman 03:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see anyone searching for or linking to this. Maybe, possibly, for 1 = 2 (which, on preview, I see is a redirect to this). But even that's dubious. —Korath (Talk) 06:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I can see people searching for it, or trying to make another article with this name. Kappa 10:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see people searching for this with its exact spacing and phrasing. If we make this into a redirect we might as well make 1=2, 2=1, Proof that 1=2, Proof that 2=1, and any number of other articles into redirects as well. Which after seeing now, are redirects mostly to this article for deletion, I believe there is no real reason to keep them hanging around, since a user searching for this phenomenon would most likely have to use the search function anyway, which would lead them to the Invalid proof page, where they would find what they're looking for. ÅrУnT†∈ 15:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • They aren't doing any harm by 'hanging around' and they have a good chance of being useful. This "proof" is quite commonly discussed, and I think people would be likely to type in of those things if they were looking for it. But if the admin decided redirecting all of them would be too much bother, I'd understand. Kappa 03:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: For a more general and I think valid (but faceteous) treatment, see my brief treatise on Ridiculous Numbers. No vote. Andrewa 11:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, delete this page. LeeJacksonKing 15:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one is going to search for this... Agriculture 04:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. JimmyShelter 09:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This "proof" is very common and redirects are cheap. - Taxman 03:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Invalid proof. Neutralitytalk 16:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 05:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Logan Fontenelle Middle School[edit]

I'm going to just say non-notable and see what happens. I'm not really a deletionist but I'm pretty sure most middle schools are non-notable. --TIB (talk) 03:50, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 04:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inherent notability.--Centauri 05:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no useful content whatsoever. —Korath (Talk) 06:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Schools are not inherently notable, and this article fails to establish notability. Delete. Uncle G 13:17, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Luigi30 14:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too little interesting content to be encyclopedic and not verifiable. Mozzerati 14:46, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Bellevue Public Schools. Niteowlneils 18:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, no useful context. Velela 18:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree; not notable. Cabhan 18:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article goes the long way round with lists to tell us that (1) the school is in some town in Nebraska; (2) that it has 7th and 8th grades; and (3) that each of the grades has 4 "educational teams", with the cutesie names of the teams given. (What the heck is an educational team?). The vast majority of middle schools are not notable, and there is no reason to think this is an exception, notwithstanding the mystery of the "educational teams". --BM 19:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think middle school would have to be quite remarkable to be encyclopedic. This article fails to establish noteworthy about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bellevue, Nebraska and delete - Skysmith 11:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested by Skysmith. GRider\talk 17:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless anyone has any objections, I've taken the liberty of redirecting this article over to Bellevue, Nebraska. They're cheap enough. GRider\talk 18:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I object. The vast majority of the comments above are deletes, not merges, not even redirects without merges. Please don't try to make an end run around consensus. —Korath (Talk) 19:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • You may be bold and revert me if you'd like, but a concensus is not required for a redirect, and it's completely possible someone may search for this school on Wikipedia as we host a great deal many articles on schools around the globe. GRider\talk 20:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Continue the vote. While it is in progress, Wikipedians can edit the article to their heart's content. If the outcome of the vote is a consensus to delete, the article will be deleted whether or not it has meanwhile been redirected by GRider. I would say, however, that the redirect while the vote is in progress makes it more cumbersome for editors to read the article and learn any facts it might contain which bear on the school's notability. (It doesn't have any such facts, but I expect people will want to find that out for themselves.) --BM 21:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Keeping the {{subst:vfd}} notice intact and visible during the entire length of the process is why "Redirect" and "Merge" are votes. Uncle G 05:32, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. No content, no encyclopedic value, no notability. Just another bit of "schoolcruft" almost certainly from a student acting in the interest of school spirit. - Lucky 6.9 21:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If everything is included, nothing is notable. Denni☯ 01:48, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although this article is pretty bare, if it gets deleted hopefully a better sub-seed will be replanted. P.S. The usual stuff about Wikipedia not being paper. P.P.S. Couldn't we have, what some people would consider but I currently do not, some although less notible still notible stuff in a category 'less notible' and have it so people doing a random search won't find it? I still don't really understand the superfear about having this content in Wikipedia, but if its about public comments we can have it so people can choose not to see 'less notible' materials (webpages, schools, not sure what else, ask deletionists ;) )--ShaunMacPherson 17:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Middle schools are not inherently notable, and this article doesn't begin to make a case for its existence. — Gwalla | Talk 04:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are inherently notable and article has potential to be encyclopedic. --Andylkl 20:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The page is pending deletion due to a block compression error. Joyous 03:12, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Destination architects[edit]

Promotional stuff. IMO not a common term (i.e., Neologism), used only by wikipedia mirrors, "Destination Design and Coastal/Hydroscape Architects" and Institute of Destination Architects and Designers. It merely denotes design of resorts.

Also, the latter smartasses redirect from their webpage http://www.idad.org/Home_FLASH/index.htm here, to save host space or something. Mikkalai 03:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 08:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NL[edit]

Non-notable page. Six Google hits. Antandrus 04:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Content before blanking:

Six Google hits.
  • delete. Mikkalai 04:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteSix Google hits. -- Curps 05:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:15, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Values In Design[edit]

Some kind of rant, non-encyclopedic. Mikkalai 04:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although the phrase results in Google hits, there seems to be no set "values" in design. Perhaps it could be listed as a theory on some design entry. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:36, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article boils down to "There are values in system design. They have to be taken into account. It's hard. We don't know anything about it.". Delete, and start afresh if and only if there is anything informative to say upon the topic. Uncle G 13:31, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are informative things to say on the topic. See here and here, for example. I can agree with the deletion of the current entry, but I will work on a more appropriate submission. --michael zimmer 15:24, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO the only thing can be said is kind of promotional and boasting stuff. The term implies that the rest of the design doesn't care about any values, and only these smart guys (who coined the term) decided to put (or find) some value into mindless and valueless world of design. Mikkalai 21:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • "valueless world of design"?? sounds like your criticism is just that you don't agree with the premise of this perspective. that's a POV, but not a reason to omit an entry. that'd be like deleting the entry on postmodernism just becuase you don't agree with the theory. Having an entry on VID is not "promotional" nor "boasting" - its a multi-disciplinary academic field that deserves description. Its practioners don't imply that the "rest of the design" (whatever you mean by that) doesn't care about values - the purpose of the field is make the value-implications of design apparent. Just as scholars of participatory design might be interested in "usability," scholars interested in Values In Design also point to the importance of "autonomy," "freedom from bias," "trust" or other values of moral/ethical import in the design of a technology. Again, I'll work on a new article.--michael zimmer 21:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and personal essay unless good, verifiable references are provided, prior to expiration of VfD, that show that at least of three people listed as proponents—Lewis Mumford, Langdon Winner, Thomas Hughes, Donald Mackenzie, Madelaine Akrich, Bruno Latour, Helen Nissenbaum, Philip Brey, Batya Friedman, Lawrence Lessig—actually haved used this term with the stated meaning. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Helen Nissenbaum [3] and Batya Friedman [4] definitely use "this term with the stated meaning." The rest, to my understanding, recognize the political & value biases within technology, but wouldn't be considered direct proponents/conributors of the field, with the possible exception of Bruno Latour. --michael zimmer 23:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a better article would be for "Value Sensistive Design" [5] - a perspective that is better and conceptualized alongside fields such as participatory design, computer supported cooperative work, computer ethics or human computer interaction--michael zimmer 23:31, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • That makes more sense as a term. But we are discussing a different article. "ViD" doesn't look like established discipline. Of course, if a couple of notable persons use this term as term, not as a headline, then OK with me. It remains to be proven, though. The idea under the term is clear, but is the term widely accepted? Mikkalai 02:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Must a term be "widely accepted" to be included in Wikipedia? Is the point to make Wikipedia a place to find entries of only "widely accepted" ideas, or any idea that a person might come across, no matter how obscure or controversial?--michael zimmer 03:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Absolutely not: Wikipedia is very explicitly not a place for "any idea that a person might come across, no matter how obscure." Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia within the recognizable meaning of the word. It is a secondary source which documents well understood, well accepted, knowledge. A controversial topic may be encyclopedic by virtue of being widely held or notable; complex belief systems that are held by large numbers of people are covered in detail. Emerging concepts, new artistic movements, promising bands, recently released political books, and "memes on the rise" are not. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and, particularly, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • First, please be more careful with words: "term" vs "idea". The term may be acepted, while the idea may not. Second, wikipedia is for things of notablility, not a junkyard of all possible ideas. But we are discussing the specific article. I claim that the term "ViD" is hardly notable. I can coin scores of such: "virtue in design", "humanity in design", etc., all relecting basically the same idea. the question is: if the idea is notable, what is the notable term for it? Mikkalai 03:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that this term has currency. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:14, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sanjay Bhatia[edit]

  • delele.Vanity. non-notable. Mikkalai 04:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Probable autobiography. Trilobite (Talk) 16:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable PatGallacher 01:22, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:13, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Liushui[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable, or is a prank or localism, as I can't find any thing to verify it. Liushui martial, "Liu shui" martial, "Michael Muise" martial, "Sladic Pajazetovic" all get a small number of hits, mostly in the single or double digits, but I haven't found any that refer to a martial art by this name. Sole contrib of an anon, so a request for more info or references unlikely to be answered. Niteowlneils 05:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks like a "fanmade" martial arts style. Delete unless notability can be established. Kappa 08:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as definitely non-notable, vanity, original research, etc. Fire Star 16:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, original research, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 08:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Memetics:Memetic defence quotient[edit]

The only result I get when searching for "memetic defence quotient" in Google is the Wikipedia article on Meme. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks like nonsense to me. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonsense. RJFJR 06:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article was rejected by my memetic defenses. --Zarquon 07:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Article outside of any recognised Wikipedia:Namespace. Author claims on xyr talk page not to be creating test pages. ("I don't experiment and I'm not a 5 year old") Thus Speedy delete under criterion #3. Uncle G 19:00, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as fabricated nonsense. silsor 08:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The decision of whether to keep it as a disambiguation page should be made elsewhere. dbenbenn | talk 08:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Potatoe[edit]

All of the relevant information is already included at Dan Quayle, and this article can't really be expanded. The only time it'll ever come up is in discussions of Quayle, and even then it doesn't deserve its own page. – Beginning 05:30, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Might as well redirect to potato. It's a common enough misspelling, and literacy is in its death throes anyway. —Korath (Talk) 06:50, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Or would that be, in this context, "death throws"? Denni☯
    • I suppose, though it's rather embarassing to think we'd have to do that. I don't profess to be the best speller around, but that's pretty atrocious. – Beginning 07:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • The Dan Quayles of this world need encylopedias too. Kappa 08:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Dan Quayles need encyclopaedias, and we do redirect some reasonable mis-spellings already, in deference to that. However, the rest of us need encyclopaedias that note that this term is more that just one mere mis-spelling amongst many. Redirect to Dan Quayle (and remove the resulting self-redirect from Dan Quayle). Uncle G 13:39, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete this page. Can't we delete also the page on Dan Quayle on the grounds that he's non-notable? --Angr 14:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you seriously want that, nominate it. However, I predict that it will not be deleted. I'll vote to keep it, for starters. Uncle G 15:02, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Redirect to potato as a misspelling. Redirect to Dan Quayle seems less useful, since the incident was many years ago and was not very significant, let alone for the non-Americans among us. Martg76 15:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to potato, not to Dan Quayle. People aren't going to type "potatoe" or make a link called "potatoe" and expect it to go to Dan Quayle. They know where to go for information about him. However, bad spellers may type this word expecting to learn about the plant Solanum tuberosum. — Ливай | ☺ 15:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. In fact, I've been bold and created the redirect to Potato. Joyous 16:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Redirecting to Dan Quayle would have been a bit insulting to our former V.P., and therefore a bit POV, as deserved as it might be. I wonder if Misunderestimated goes where I think it might go? (Looks like it does.) --BM 18:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. The reason that I recommended redirecting to Dan Quayle is that the spelling bee incident is usually what people are referring to when spelling it as potatoe, at least in my experience. It wasn't an example of a POV or insult. – Beginning 21:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirecting potatoe to Dan Quayle is neither POV nor insulting. The particular association of this word with this person is a simple matter of fact, not a point of view. It is a fact that some people associate the word with the person significantly more so than mis-spellings are generally associated with particular people. (The author of the article and pretty much all of the participants here apparently do, for starters.) The insult would be to say that Dan Quayle is a potatoe (or even a potato). But a redirect does not necessarily imply identity, especially since redirects can result from mergers, and shouldn't be assumed to imply it. Uncle G 03:43, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Comment Given the obvious disagreement of where it should redirect, I think I've done what's necessary and sufficient by rewriting the article to read as follows, to serve both those readers who have innocently made the same mistake as Dan Quayle, and those who are looking it up specifically in search of a description of the Dan Quayle incident. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Potatoe is a misspelling of the word potato. It is associated with an June 15, 1992 incident which was national news in the U. S. involving then-vice-President Dan Quayle. For details, see: Dan Quayle.
  • Redirect to Potato. Megan1967 01:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as disambig per Dpbsmith's version. Kappa 01:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as disambig per Dpbsmith. I've reverted Potatoe to that version because some well-meaning soul has changed it to a straight redirect to Potato and stripped the VfD tag. --TenOfAllTrades 02:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • My major concern is preventing (poor) duplication. As long as any article expansion or hyperlinking from other articles on the two subjects is clearly directed toward either Dan Quayle or potato, I'm happy with a disambiguation instead of a redirect. It's a pity that {{disambig}} doesn't really fit this page, as that would help. Uncle G 03:43, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Potato. Jonathunder 04:14, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Potato. Potato now includes a bit about the Dan Quayle incident. -- SGBailey 09:31, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Potato. The Quayle incident is mentioned there, which is the correct place for it. One could also refer to it at spelling bee? Cal T 13:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see problems with redirecting to Potato in its present state. Two classes of users might look up potatoe: A) those who are simply making the same mistake Dan Quail made, and B) those who are using it as an entry point for the Dan Quaille incident, perhaps because they can remember how Dan Quale spelled "potato" better than they can remember the correct spelling of his name.
Currently, the way the Potato article is structured, the class B user redirected to Potato might well be baffled. It's not obvious at a glance that the page really will lead them to what they seek. If they don't give up right away, and can't guess that Miscellany is the right subtopic, they will need to scroll down and skim past six screensful of Burbank russets and shepherd's pie before reaching the link to Dan Quayl.
We could solve this by moving the brief Dann Quail note-and-link to the top of the Potato page, but we then annoy class C—the users interested in potatoes, who are now confronted by a crumb of J. Dan Quayle-cruft in the article's place of honor.
My feeling is that potatoe is truly ambiguous in that it can be either a simple misspelling or a reference to a famous news item, and therefore a disambiguation-like page is appropriate. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I'm going to reverse myself and go with a keep the disambig per Dpbsmith (and, pretty much, the originally VfD'd article). Who knows, someone who clicks on a mislinked potatoe and gets this might go back and actually fix it. —Korath (Talk) 02:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to potato. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, list on Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Neutralitytalk 03:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and disambig as suggested above. Do not delete, do not merely redirect. GRider\talk 18:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

When I was in school, potatoe (with an E) was the spelling that was taught. It was not just a local spelling; I moved often as a child and attended several schools, yet potatoe with an E was the spelling taught in many of them.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 08:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Screamapillar[edit]

Must we have an article for every one-off joke on every television show? Psychonaut 05:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's well written, though - and the screamapillar is awesome. I'm trying to find someplace to stick this text. [maestro] 06:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Or I'll deliver one to your home. Seriously, it's a one off joke, never used again. Deserves one line in an episode guide. Average Earthman 12:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't to cover every tiny little detail about the topics we cover. JoaoRicardo 20:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Made-up words in The Simpsons. This article, as written, can be copied-and-pasted directly into that article under a new heading. --Deathphoenix 03:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Made-up words in The Simpsons, and add redirect. Megan1967 05:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable joke. The Simpsons is great, but we don't need a record of every joke that was ever on the show. For crying out loud. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It was the whole basis of an episode, if I remember correctly. I've merged, but not redirected. -- user:zanimum
  • Merge with Made-up words in The Simpsons, and add a redirect 11:23, 11 Feb 2005 User:Radiant
  • Merge. I was the one who rewrote this. In retrospect, I should have just redirected to Made-up words in The Simpsons and written a little Screamapillar section. -- Binadot 11 Feb 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:05, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Daimonion[edit]

Nonsense. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:34, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

INTRONDUCTORY NAME-CALLING:
To Evil Monkey and others: I think you are wrong, I read the deletion policy. Yes, it partially describes a hyphotetical Intelligence Increase (the I in SMILE - Space Migration, Inteligence Increase, Life Extension - see transhumanism, Timothy Learly) technique,

BUT![edit]

DISCUSSION:
  1. It describes a real phenomenum, published and discussed by some psychologists (society of the mind), neuroscientists and philosophers of nature. Daimonions ( ~ constrained personalities (the noun phrase being an symbolic expression on a non-basic level of abstraction of a symbolic derivative of a symbol - in terms of applied memetics I agreed not tu push into WikiPedia), suggests, which is congruent with the narration of the book and my logical and symbolic dervation analysis of the plot device - your "I" is a persona tied - personality - as there are some things you'll not do, you have constraints, by catching the primodial chaos of continuum of possibilities in the web of of constraints one can define, declare and execute - willlt - the HyperLogos, one's own, unique (singleton) personality (the Self, uberdaimonion controlling all the others, though it's not absolute monarchy and needs love, attention to details, at least basic cooperation, negotiation, empathy, sympathy, ability to fold space using orange space gas (joke!), lack of cohabitation phobia, discreetion, heigtened-acute awareness of Self ("ISelf" - both noun, verb and pronoun - the essence of a me creating process resulting in a me addressed as indirect reference by me as "I", there...I really try not to confuse, you must read carefully, NOT skipping "nil" words, every word is important) - and lots more, but nobody said that becoming Ariste is easy. It's not, both in book and in the Real World). Daimonion is a constrained personality packed in a shell, frozen, marked with a name by which is later summoned and burned into something, but it does not have to be some nanocomputer embedded in the brain, which technique will reach mass market only in 72 years. There are DOCUMENTED examples of people, who DO NOT SUFFER because of mulltiple personality disorder - contrary-wise! - they are ENCHANCED and happier that before. It' real, real, real!!!
  2. The article is not finished. I plan to add at least twice as much and streamline (cleanup) the rest according to your definition of style. Sephira: You seem to avoid putting too many links on a page, perhaps for pragmatic reasons, perhaps for private estetic reasons - in which case I would argue if such law is appropriate in so colourful community.
  3. One can argue about empyrical evidence, but it's little unfair, becase we lack the machinery to read people thoghts and provide a transcript, like telephone wiretap order result. Certainly you agree, that multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia, manic depression exist and are worthy of describing in the WikiPedia? Ask yourself in presence of evidence, why not?
  4. It's not original research, 90% of the idea is copied directly from the book, I only streamlined it and fixed in places where it didn't click.
  5. I am planning to add quotes from the book to give some reference and flavour (it show very interesting technique of presenting narration, in scenes when Ariste is talking or working with the daimonions and many things happen at the same time). The daimonion concept is a central plot device and is so brilliant In My Very Humble Opinion, that it deserves to be mentioned separate from the book. Hence, it deserves a separate article.
  6. Did Agquarx 12:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) manage to push the pendulum in You a little toward more balance in balance of power and healty dose of imbalance or maybe you have some contra-arguments? Please be civil and sensible. Please think before you act. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I propose to discuss more instead of (useless and stupid) hastily and hostile voting before discussing - you are supposed to serve the community, NOT the other way, a a final arbiter and antivandal defence field, am I right? You act too fast - I forgive you, because it's probably because of too much work fighting spamming morons and bots, but don't be fooled that it's OK, it probably did damage in the past and migt do a lot more damage in the future. -Agquarx 12:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
ASSOCIATED ORATORY ARGUMENT:
Think About The Day After Tomorrow. Cherish The Now, But Be Prepared To Face Consequences In Evernow. Are You Ready For What To Comes? Control Your Fate. Never Believe In What You Read, Including This Sentence (one can construct logically true sentence which neverless is evil and must not be executed, never believe in words alone as the truth, examine the fruits - this is the way to separate the good and the evil). Every Generalization Is False, Including This One. Remember To Forget Often. Agree To Disagree. If You Don't See YourSelf In The Mirror, Turn On The Light. Life Is Random, Not Chaos. Stabilization Is A Path Down, On That Path Lies Danger Of Everhungry Abyss of Void. Violence Is Not The Answer, It Is The Question. Sell Your Self, You'll Gain Neutral Point Of View. Laugh At Yourself, Oftener Then At Others, When In Doubt, Be Silent. Evidence Might Be Self-Evident, Know Thy Source, Know Thy Body, Know Thy Self. -Agquarx 12:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC), self-quoting closure of virulent memes and coroutines, a little tongue-in-cheek, but trying heavily to understand your motives, feel with-you, touch your minds in a communion (communication entry needs a small amendment...) and avoid the obvious, not succumb to the primal anger of a parent defending a child.
ASSOCIATED CALL TO THE VOICE OF REASON:
BASIC HYPOTESIS: We are Fighting for the better future rather as an sephira of Athena/Minerva, NOT Ares/Zeus. FOLLOWS: Being a Real Man DOES NOT IMPLY forbidden from thinking like a woman. IMPLICATION: Athena (she) will propose a treaty terminating war even before it begins using the intristic human ability to reason and empathy, which only need to be perfected by training, she can drain out the will to fight from opposing sides to win without a single battle - the mu strategy of warfare, which is HARD in { this } universe, because you flow against the gradient of entropy, thus you need to possess Wisdom BILATERAL RELATION (if assuming super! abstraction) or NEGATED IMPLICATION @ Ares (he) will attack at random closest locus of decreased entropy and kill'em'all and then take pictures of bloody corpses of children after raping everthing at reach including trees and vegetables - this is the penultimate strategy of warfare and is EASY in { this } universe, because you flow with the gradient of entropy, thus even Reason is not required, though MIGHT help, depends. HYPOTHESIS FROM IMPLICATION: Gods and Goddesses are useful as device for effective reasoning, for they embody an essence of an idea, each and every one from any mythology you choose to study (or believe in, then it's { this } plus a person and the willt).
ASSOCIATED CALL TO THE VOICE OF LOVE:
For people who are not scared of somewhat abstracted mysticism combined with reason, logic and scientific method: The Tree of War brings death, famine, pestilence, pain, mourning, destruction, tears, lost hope and the end of the world. The Tree of Knowledge brings neverending stream of tasty, nutrituous, healthy, useful fruit. The Tree of Life guides us toward the better option, to avoid the end of the world. One only has to listen, examine own motives often, discuss own deepest assumptions, possitive disintegrate to nuorish Mind and make it closer to perfect, possitive dissociate to nuorish Self, to bring own contribution into this melting pot of minds dancing, trembling, to the pulsing rhytm of a common idea-machine, pumping out the darkness of the Night of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) ( the sequence prepending { this } bracket expression (ASSUMPTION: while reading, rules of English are added with replacement into reasoning process - from left to right, from top to bottom) should be accompanied by a song called "All Souls Night" created by entity named "Loreena McKenniit", I'm deadly serious { here }, feel free to test it by empyrical experiment - there is free audio media and lyrics on the home page, easy to find by googling (estimated lost time: 3 minutes)). It does not matter if you are artifical or spontaneously generated or a member of a phyla or phyle - differences should be encouraged to assert surtival, similarities should be praised to assert civilization and community.
grok?

-Agquarx 12:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SIDE NOTE TO INVOKE MUTUAL TOLLERANCE:
Sometimes I might sound vague or null. Sometimes I use a wrong word. Sometimes I make speling mistakes in sense of wrong chain of letters and in sense of executing the craft of spellweaving (which might be poetically described as an act and action and acting of surfing on a standing wave of language). Please assume good intentions, to avoid (annullify the void) logical fallacy of reverse assumption which almost always leads to invalid conclusions (in this sentence I mixed three different levels of symbolic abstraction, sorry if it is nonsense to you, I try not to confuse). English is not my mothers' tongue. The answer to question "Why don't you edit the native language version of WikiPedia then?" is "Because I don't feel native. I chose to use English, because it is the most liquid language of a few from the set of languages that I know and am able to express myself in rightly ("rightly" means EXISTS: formally correct according to syntax rules of language as much as I am able to AND logically coherent AND true at higher level of abstraction as much as I am able to AND beautiful AND good as in higher good as much as I am able to AND in me-independent-transmission-protocol hollistic unilateral closed relation system of corresponence of truth' symbol and it's detivatives, ONTO as many levels of abstraction and expression of symbols and symbolic derivatives as I am able to AND in as little body of signals as I am able to AND in as little of relations of relative dependency AT other terms for the target to grok as I able to)).
Howgh. Agquarx 12:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
NOBODY EXPECTS LOGIC INQUISITION:
P.S. The notion of "foobar can be included" CAUSAL DEPENDENCY: "it will be widely known" COMBINED IMPLICATION: "what is not widely known, should not be incuded because it is not widely known so it should not be included" IMPLICATES "foobar is not widely known" and is a beautiful example of wrong (destructive) argument, imperfect reasoning, circular logic, power of self-assertions to create empty truth, logical fallacy and nonsense. Agquarx 12:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It makes sense as the description of some thing in a science fiction book. Not useful outside the context of the book though, so I'd split Aristoi (novel) out of Aristoi and merge it into that. Daimonion would disambig between that and Socrates. Kappa 08:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 16:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DON'T DELETE How can you sincirely write such causes? Do you have at least a bit of imagination? Didn't I provide multiple reasons for realizing the concept in the Real World? You seem to be on a sacred task to hunt down all of my articles and delete them, while showing nil coprehension of the topic and providing bogus explanations. Daimonions not useful? Have you got any real arguments against this concept or simply like to make other people miserable? Agquarx 17:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course. I knew that this had the tang of familiarity about it. From the people that brought you Ego surfing (already itself up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ego surfing), Datastream (roll the history back to the original), Datapackets (already itself up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Datapackets) random wikification of ordinary words in various articles, flamebait additions to Poland, the psychedelia that is Template:Love (up for deletion at WP:TFD), and the new "Memetics:" namespace. That vandalism watch is now called for. Delete. Uncle G 19:08, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. but cleanup, as a description of a fictional entity, and separate into different articles if different topics are present. - Omegatron 18:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd want independent verification of the existence of the fictional entity, or even the book, myself. Uncle G 19:08, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
      • The book exists, but you're right that this is derived from a plot device. - Omegatron 20:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article says that this is a term derived from a plot device used in a novel. (Note the passive mode, it doesn't say by whom it was derived.) Even if it then proceeded to elaborate on that plot device in the context of the novel, the article should be deleted, since we don't need separate articles for things invented by novelists for their creations, unless they become more generally notable (e.g. grok). But that isn't what this article does: instead it launches off onto a personal essay/original research/speculation which verges on nonsense. That is even worse, and is eminently deletable. --BM 19:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and any other fabrications by this user. humblefool® 20:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a load of (well see the state of a road after a large mounted procession has passed). 81.152.25.75 23:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 14 keep, 12 delete. dbenbenn | talk 03:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fart fetishism[edit]

I don't believe every weird fetish out there deserves a WP article. I'm unaware of any medical classification of a flatuence fetish, and it doesn't have any cultural prominence that I know of. EventHorizon talk 06:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was interesting to read.--Sonjaaa 07:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Googling "Fart festishism" gets 3 hits. "Fart fetish" gets 8,370 hits, but only 328 displayed. The first ones few pages of results appear to be genuine uses, but the bulk of them are google bait. Kappa 08:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • no vote from me but I will offer the following: " 'Flatulence (Flatuphilia, Eproctolagniac and Eproctophilia - arousal from flatulence) Flatulence refers to the passing of intestinal gas. The French once had a stage act where a performer attracted large paying crowds merely to watch him pass gas. Serious flatuphiles request that their partner release the intestinal gas directly into their awaiting face or mouth." From Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices by Brenda Love. You never know where random reference books that you pick up might come in handy... :P Dismas 14:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. It emphatically is not the "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices", which I am delighted to have remain on Dismas' bookshelf. --BM 14:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article on minor (therefore non-notable) fetish. Fire Star 16:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stripped of the content that appears to be promotion for a pornography site, there is only a dictionary definition left. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Comment: It makes me sad to notice that articles touching on human sexual behaviour are voted to be deleted much easier than articles on other subjects, no matter how unimportant in an "encyclopedic" sense they are. I hope no one makes his judgement by his personal disgust against an article. I addmit that these things have been a problem on Internet. The problem is to find correct and objective information on sexual behaviour related things when wanted and only when wanted, and I see Wikipedia as the best place for this. wikipedia being the worlds number one source for objective information. --Easyas12c 17:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think a general encyclopedia needs to probe the outer reaches of weirdness when it comes to human behaviour in general, or sexuality specifically. For example, I'm sure there are a variety of different forms of Cannibalism, and we could disgust almost everybody (and fascinate a few, I suppose) by having articles describing each of them in detail. This article isn't quite that bad, but flatuphilia must be several standard deviations from the norm of sexual behaviour. If you have some evidence that it isn't, then by all means present it. --BM 17:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are even more obscure fetishes linked from the sexual fetishism page, so a vote to delete here calls the others into question IMO. Hold my nose and Keep. – RJH 19:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you believe any of these articles should be deleted, please list them at VfD instead of accepting them as community consensus. JoaoRicardo 20:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This vote should not be based on how "weird" this is. It's about notability. There is no evidence that there are a reasonable number of individuals who are sexually atracted to flatus. JoaoRicardo 20:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That is what I meant by the "outer reaches of weirdness". People are fairly weird in general, and there are plenty of weird human practices that are extremely common and notable, (such as, oh, religion for example). However, something so far out on the fringe that (a) practically nobody does it; and (b) practically no one has ever heard of it -- is not notable or encyclopedic. --BM 21:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If "people are fairly weird in general" then their "weird" practices are by definition encyclopedic - this particular fetish included. I'm interested to known what you mean by "practically nobody does it" and "practically nobody has ever heard of it", considering there has been to my knowledge no scientific study of the practice, so its actual prevalence is unknown, and that people such as myself, who have no interest in the "outer reaches of sexual weirdness" have actually heard of it.--Centauri 02:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I had missed the link to commercially sold videos Starblind mentions below. My mistake. I'm also convinced by Kappa's argument concerning the google bait. But article does need some verification, specially that "fart diary" part. I believe it should be turned into a medical article, not a "look how weird these people are" kind of article. :-) JoaoRicardo 19:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 20:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep apparently common enough that there are commercially-sold videos catering to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. States of the human psyche are inherently notable, even more so for fringe behaviour. And the "no one has ever heard of it" argument is the very reason why such articles are needed in an encyclopaedia. --Plek 22:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-6 23:19 Z
  • I guess I should vote Keep. The google results are evidence that a significant number of people use this term, even the use as google bait indicates that spammers expect this term to be searched for. Kappa 00:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sexual fetishes are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 00:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a minor barely notable form of fetish. Megan1967 01:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — J3ff 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough that there are websites devoted to the practice. (I found out by accident - honest!) 23skidoo 04:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard of it before (some Japanese site about it). --SPUI (talk) 05:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be an existing fetish of appeal to some. Capitalistroadster 08:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Easyas12c 18:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Inherently notable. Oops. Delete Denni☯ 02:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • This is real?!? I've either lived a sheltered life or have lived far too long.  :^) Abstain. Just too weird to vote on otherwise. - Lucky 6.9 02:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no way to prove the existence of those fart-diaries!! you know it could be some crazy woman promoting her own fart diary :) ... Anyway this is really rubbish and I am surprized that many wikipedians are voting to keep. Omar Filini 11:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Makes you wonder doesnt it? Alas unless more editors vote delete, we're beginning to sound like farts in a tunnel of apathy. An article on farts certainly does stink. Megan1967 09:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Very strange indeed that a fart on wikipedia is more notable than Marco of Alexandria who was voted off as not notable!! Well, if this page passes the vfd then I guess the notability of wikipedia as a whole should come into question. Many other examples like this exist. Omar Filini 11:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See also [7] (not work safe). This may not be a common fetish, but it certainly exists. --SPUI (talk) 11:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you trying to say that ANYTHING that exists is wikiworthy?? I have seen many articles about entities that Exist get deleted simply because the concensus was that they were not notable enough for wikipedia!! Anyone who votes keep here, must really think hard when he/she gets the urge to vote delete on any other articles. Omar Filini 16:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently between inclusionists and people who believe essentially that all forms of sexual behaviour are notable and fit for an encyclopedia article, Wikipedia is, in fact, going to be the on-line Encyclopedia of Unusual Sexual Practices. I don't know if this is because fetishists are over-represented amongst Wikipedia editors or whether it is a bending-over-backwards to be open-minded. Hopefully the latter. --BM 17:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • comment It is safe to assume that most people with paranormal thoughts/desires who cannot express them outwardly will seek refuge as anonymous internet users; they usually become heavy users. So it is logical to follow that the percentage of fetishists within the online community is MUCH higher than that of the offline population. This argument could answer BM's question of fetishists being over-represented amongst wikipedians; but could also be used as a supporting notion to Keep the article since wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which serves the online community with all its deviations.I personally don't support this because I think wikipedia should represent the better side of the online community and not the darker. I think that the result will be in favor of keeping the article which is a shame really because wikipedia will lose credibility when an article like this pops up as a random page on some innocent first-time-user's screen. Omar Filini 18:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The whole fart diaries part is unencyclopedic as it seems to be a very minor, non-notable phenomenon (<50 unique Google hits for "fart diary", only 2 relevant hits for "fart diaries"). Ignoring that, what's left is the fact that (1) such a fetish exists and (2) it can be combined with domination practices, and I fail to see why these two tiny tidbits of information should be granted an article of their very own separate from flatulence. — Ливай | ☺ 23:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because there are 8150 reasons to believe it's notable and prevalent.--Centauri 00:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It amazes me how people describe entities as notable or not notable based on google search results! As I said the internet is a great medium for the spread of pornography, especially perverse pornography .. and thus you will find that almost all of your wildest sexual fantasies are found notably by google the great! You will get 105,000 search results for Fart Fetish (Notable) but only 59,000 search results for Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz (less notable) and just 13,700 for Dr Sam Nujoma, The president of Namibia (Much less Notable) ... Does Wikipedia benefit from propagting pornography in the same way that pornographic sites do??? I bet not, but you know, THAT is PRECISELY why you will find so much porn on the web!! not because it is Notable!! but because it is a business!! and no one will pay to read a webpage about Togo's or Algeria's president, simply because they contain REAL factual information that is not for profit and will thus be selectively propagated! so the 8150 reasons argument is truly falacious! if Wikipedia editors will cast their votes based solely on google search results, then wikipedia will just be a well written version of the whole internet with all its rubbish .. and just a few of its gems concealed within the folds of pornographic and commercial information. Omar Filini 01:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia can and should reflect the reality of the world as it is, not the world as some people might like it to be. --Centauri 04:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Centauri I really agree with you, and I believe in including all sorts of information on wikipedia! But when I find that the consensus on wikipedia is to vote to delete notable articles on notable subjects for such reasons as "Not Notable enough" (as has happened with the Marco of Alexandria page, on which we both voted keep) I fail to see how something such as a Fart Fetish could have more notability among wikipedians! if Articles like this get passed while articles like Marco's get deleted simply because google gets more results on Farts; then the whole Notability of wikipedia as I have said earlier will become questionable. Omar Filini 11:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment on the google notability. People are shy when writing on Internet about intimate things? I mean, what is the relation between people who go to the bathroom and people who describe their bathroom behaviour on the Internet. This makes google give less results with appropriate content when searching for fart diaries and other fetish related topics and also emphasizes the shameless commercial side. --Easyas12c 08:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
People are very open about their fantasies on the net unlike real life, many Oppressed desires are openly expressed on various internet channels; the anonymity of the users is what helps them feel safe about disclosing their otherwise socially-tabboo fantasies. Omar Filini 11:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A trivial fetish, but good enough to promote two or three commercial websites. Pilatus 23:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Carnildo 00:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all trivial fetishes. Wikipedia is an excellent resource of trivial information. GRider\talk 18:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Absolute Rubbish .... Abrahams 12:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article is pending deletion with a block compression error. Joyous 02:56, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dartmouth Dining Service[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Bits of universities are not inherently notable in their own rights. Notability has to be established. For some, it can be. For the "1st best college food service in the country", it might be. For the sixth best, it has not been. There is nothing of worth here to Merge into Dartmouth College. Delete. Uncle G 13:55, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. The dining services of universities aren't encyclopedia material. What's next: Harvard Buildings and Grounds Department? But this is probably someone having a bit of fun at Wikipedia's expense, or else "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". --BM 14:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. JoaoRicardo 20:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Possible bad-faith prank. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't tell me the Great Dartmouth Invasion of '04 has returned! That clogged up VfD for a week. -R. fiend 20:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Easy, easy. We never got a complete list but there is pretty good evidence that we got about several good articles for every VfD-worthy article. We didn't notice the articles from Dartmouth students that weren't Dartmouth vanity. I suspect this article of being trolling by someone who remembers the Dartmouth episode. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 03:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lia Menna Barreto[edit]

Looks to be just self-promotion and is nn. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete self-promotion. "not notable" is not a valid vfd reasoning.  ALKIVAR™ 07:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not yet convinced that she's not notable. I freely admit to knowing nothing about the modern arts world, but her name does seem to crop up a fair amount in reviews on contemporary Latin American art, both English and Portuguese-language. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the domain could provide some clarification? --Lawlore 12:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I don't follow the art news, but she did have her work exposed in some notable places, like the Modern Art Museum in São Paulo. She get 400 Google hits, but the Google test may not be suitable for this topic. Or maybe it should have the bar set lower. I believe she is notable within the Latin American modern art movement. JoaoRicardo 20:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per JoaoRicardo, and cleanup. Samaritan 00:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just notable enough, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, enough Google hits - but needs cleanup. -- AlexR 08:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough, but needs cleanup, this is more like a CV than an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. VfD is not cleanup. GRider\talk 18:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alex Bowen[edit]

Not notable enough. Probably vanity. Google returns only ~100 hits with various combinations of "Alex Bowen", baseball, Villa Park, etc. Unless the majors are scouting out this 14 y.o. I don't see the reason for the article. Dismas 07:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Article fails to establish notability, or even country. Delete. Uncle G 13:48, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 20:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity.--File Éireann 01:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Omar Filini 07:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article and its talk page are pending deletion with a block compression error. Joyous 02:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


Chrono Crusade[edit]

This Chrono Crusade is supposedly a different series from "Chrno Crusade", a series titled "Chrono Crusade" in the U.S.A.

The problem is that THIS Chrono Crusade cannot be verified.

WhisperToMe 08:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 16:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had stumbled upon it and found it very strange, but being only a very ocassional manga reader, I left it untouched. Indeed, I can't find evidence of that other Chrono Crusade. "chrono crusade" + "jouko" (the alleged main character) gets 2 Google hits, one of them to a Wikipedia mirror. JoaoRicardo
  • Stealth vandal. Delete. humblefool® 20:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll be... it's not mentioned in ANN's encyclopedia. Delete unless verified (an ISBN, publisher and publication date, photo, or something similar). - RedWordSmith 22:22, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate as misspelling redirect to Chrno Crusade. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well actually, Chrono Crusade is the ADV release title, so it isn't technically a mispelling. Given that our guidelines state that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," perhaps we should move the Chrno Crusade article to Chrono Crusade after this is deleted. - RedWordSmith 23:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I misread WhisperToMe's listing. This changes the justification for the redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test. Megan1967 01:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then move Chrno Crusade here. -Sean Curtin 03:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BoshTang[edit]

Self-promotion page for a non-notable blog. — J3ff 09:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dark Mirror[edit]

Formed in January 2005. Due to record a demo soon. RickK 09:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 15:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesus of Suburbia[edit]

I have a feeling this will be judged a "keep", but this substub is very vague. Does it have to do with a song I found on Google, or is it just garbage? — Bill 18:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • It appears to be about a song on Green Day's new album, American Idiot. I say redirect to the album, but I won't lose sleep over deletion. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. We're not a song directory. Such a thing would be ugly to create, even outside of Wikipedia. --Improv 19:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:59, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to American Idiot. (Both a song on the album, and a major character in the story) —siroχo 23:39, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a play on The Buddha of Suburbia, and we're not a song catalog. No redirect, because the chances of someone searching this way and wanting the album (instead of the novel). If they are searching for the song, then they need to learn that we're not a song guide. Geogre 13:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I created the Story section of the American Idiot for this very purpose... the character is already described on there.

--24.147.51.101 19:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirect, so people looking for information on Jesus of Suburbia can find it. Kappa 10:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Martg76 15:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to American Idiot. Greenday's American Idiot album is a theme album telling the story of this character, i.e. all songs have to do with him in some way. Therefore this is not a song, but a character for a series of song. JoaoRicardo 20:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. Samaritan 00:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a song database. Megan1967 01:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --nixie 02:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to American Idiot. It is a notable track and suite of tracks on the album as well as the core concept of the album. Capitalistroadster 08:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, a song has to be exceptionally notable to merit an encyclopedia entry of its own. This isn't. Redirect to American Idiot. Bearcat 07:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Allow me to point it out that this is not a song, but a character in an album. JoaoRicardo 12:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to American Idiot. Redirects are cheap. — Gwalla | Talk 04:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 16:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Russian Mars Ship[edit]

This article seems to meet the unverifiability criteria. At best we have a hearsay claim reported in a Western media source which by its nature is given to hyping future technological advances which may or may not come to pass.

Although secrecy marked the Soviet space program, since the breakup of the USSR its history has been well documented by Russians and Western observers alike. An extensive look at this topic on the Russian Space Web shows only a history of models and proposals, no completed vehicles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This is an article based solely upon a single journalist being told by tour guides about a ship that no-one else has ever shown to exist and that the journalist is (of course) not allowed to see. Unverifiable. This is no Lieutenant Kije. Delete unless the article can be wholly rewritten so that it is verifiable. Uncle G 14:07, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless some verification of the information is forthcoming. --BM 14:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Only reason for having an article was if this was notable as a rumor or a hoax, which doesn't seem to be the case. JoaoRicardo 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting, needs cleanup - have done a little. Thought i was a space junkie .. i never knew about this or Polyus spacecraft. Which actually seems to have existed. Could get lodged under proposed russian spacecraft along with Polypus and Buran or a 'failed space projects' section or at Category:Soviet_space_program. Please excuse my sad enthusiasm .. soviet space tech is/was astonishing! max rspct 20:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sadly, the information in this article would do better as a subsection of a broader topic, as per Max rspct's suggestion.variable 21:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 23:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is clearly worthy of expansion and maybe a little sprucing up Cooter08865
  • Delete, unencyclopedic rumour about a trivial hoax. Wyss 10:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. jni 13:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Immune system[edit]

IMMUNE SYSTEM This page needs to be deleted because most of it is factually incorrect. Every sentence on the page is mistaken or misguided. Two examples: It talks about the alternative complement cascade as involving C2, C3, and C4. This is PLAINLY WRONG. It talks about the "B" in B-cells as meaning "Bone Marrow", Again this is WRONG. ALL blood cells originate in the bone marrow, not just B cells. It talks about not knowing how the immune system distinguishes "self" from "nonself". But we know EXACTLY how that happens. It talks about innate v. learned immune systems yet gets it wrong again.It talks about neutrophils completly incorrectly. It goes on and on and EVERY sentence contains a factual error or a misguided notion of what the immune system is. It is INCORRECT everywhere it puts words on the page. ANYONE can check this by looking at a good immunological reference text. Please, it is an Embarrasment to your organisation.

Note: VfD entry created by 211.28.241.136 --Plek 12:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Peer review (listed), Wikipedia:Pages needing attention (listed), Wikipedia:Clean up (not listed) and Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute (not listed)--ZayZayEM 12:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In a situation where an article is about a clearly important topic, the only reason for deleting it and starting over from scratch is if the problems cannot be dealt with by the usual process of incremental edits: where the article is so bad that starting again from nothing would be better. I don't see any reason why that would be so here. If the anonymous user feels that the article is incorrect, he should simply edit it. --BM 14:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleting the article won't help in getting its facts straight. Indeed, it will entirely hinder that. Furthermore, from inspecting the article's edit history I'm wondering whether that is in fact the intention. The nominator's many edits show zero attempts to actually inject factual content into the article. Speedy Keep. Uncle G 14:41, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Keep, VfD is not the place for problems with accuracy. — Ливай | ☺ 19:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important topic. — RJH 19:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. If there are some mistakes or omissions then it needs improvement, not deletion. JoaoRicardo 19:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Important topic. Needs improvment, not deletion. Cleanup may or may not be necessary.--Theaterfreak64 20:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then FIX it. Don't go THROWING around CAPS because you want it DELETED! Sheesh, you sound like Sollog. Keep, obviously. humblefool® 20:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 211.28.241.136, please mind the Wikipedia immune system. Keep but expert input sorely needed. The immune system is one of the messiest in biology and scarcely understood. Hell, the paradigm changes every few years! JFW | T@lk 20:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep RustyCale 21:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. That VfD request bridges on the hysterical. jdb ❋ 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh...look, I did in fact insert some factual elements into the page to illustrate the point...Please keep the page then, but make it a stem and start again. Believe me, what is there is utter rubbish. Completely misguided and misleading. ALL of it is mistaken. It is an extremely poor attempt to describe the immune system and reflects badly on Wikepedia. I have NO time to do it. Those in the Wikepedia organisation should be concerned about this type of garbage masquerading as fact and should be able to look after it themselves. But please in the interests of truth and reputation DO something about this page. I am an anonymous user who has no idea about how to be otherwise, I have no time for all of this, otherwise I WOULD do it myself.

  • If you have specific objections to the article, feel free to participate in the discussion on the article's discussion page. Rest assured, the article will be improved. The way Wikipedia works you can be sure of that; it just takes people like you and me to read the articles and fix any inaccuracies or bring up questionable material on the discussion page for further inspection, and it always takes time before an article flowers into a masterpiece. As for not being an anonymous user, just click "Create an account or log in" at the top right corner of the page, then type in a username and password and voilà, you're a Wikipedian! — Ливай | ☺ 22:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good lord, what a prima donna! If you really have NO time to contribute, where did you find the time to write a multi-paragraph denuncuation of the article? jdb ❋ 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Making personal attacks isn't helpful here. Kappa 01:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Er, I guess that was a bit overblown...heh. Apologies. jdb ❋ 04:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important and notable medical topic, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article seems to be in OK shape but it would be good if we could check details and expand. I would hope that this article could be fixed to feature article status.Capitalistroadster 08:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The author of the VfD is mistaken on several points. --jag123 15:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If it is full of holes, put it up for Pages Needing Attention or clean it up yourself max rspct 23:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. It does have problems but nothing that can't be fixed. --Lexor|Talk 03:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep And btw, I'm with jdb - "Those in the Wikepedia organisation" means him as much as anyone else, surely he realizes that? --KillerChihuahua 00:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator misunderstands Wikipedia's process. — Gwalla | Talk 04:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP and ALLOW for ORGANIC growth AND expansion. VFD is NOT cleanup. GRider\talk 18:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE (done by Zanimum). jni 13:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spoeank[edit]

  • Delete, useless jargon. YannisKollias 13:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, not in general use. Kappa 13:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah. More tiny groups of students making up words. And they so want the cachet of getting their words into the dictionary ... that they add them to the encyclopaedia instead — without a definition, to boot. Delete. Uncle G 14:13, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Gehridoett (Translated: DELETE)--ZayZayEM 15:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of widespread use. JoaoRicardo 19:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:39, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cristian Villalobos[edit]

A 26-year-old who was born last year. Google yields lots of hits for various people with that name, including, for example, a Mr. Cristian Villalobos who is Superintendencia de Valores y Seguros, Chile. The article fails to cite sources and thus gives no indication as to which particular one of them it is purporting to be about. It also fails to establish notability. I'd rewrite, but I have not discovered enough about the other Cristian Villaloboses to determine whether any of them are notable. Moreover, from the talk page:

  • This page deserves to exist! The subject is relatively unknown, but has been active in photography since his undergraduate career and is now part of the Brooklyn art scene. 12.168.24.203 21:59, 2005 Feb 4
  • Bullshit! 210.50.60.112 08:59, 2005 Feb 6

Uncle G 13:08, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. - Jeltz talk 13:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability, most probably because the subject is not notable. --BM 14:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid vanity. Though I do know the shame of writing a current year (which at present is not 2004 BTW) on various applications and exams.--ZayZayEM 15:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim to notability JoaoRicardo 19:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vv Lectonar 10:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

B0g.org[edit]

Advert, POV. 65,000 google hits. Luigi30 14:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • DELETE--ZayZayEM 15:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forums are miniscule, and if you actually go to the end of the google result, you find only 465 results, the remainder of the references are all repeats from the same 465 sites. CryptoDerk 23:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see links to b0g.org all the time on IRC etc. By reading this article i learned things i didn't know about the place before. Wiki is not paper so this article doesn't do any harm being there. Clean up if it's too POViewy. bbx 03:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not what harm it does. It's what good it does. In this case, it doesn't do any good at all to Wikipedia, whilst doing a lot of good for the visibility of a heretofore largely unknown website. Whilst Wiki is not paper Wikipedia is not a website directory nor an advertising billboard. Notability not established. Delete. Uncle G 16:22, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
      • KeepI like the layout of your objection, and the relevant links so we can have a discussion given the facts/details of what was decided that Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia not, as you state, a a website directory, however I think that B0G.org is notible enough to deserve its own entry. Is there a method we can agree upon so we know if a site deserves its own article (Amazon.com, Slashdot.org, etc) based on web traffic? --ShaunMacPherson 17:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 03:04, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with the article. fmsmoothie 04:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • user's only contribution to Wikipedia so far is this vote
  • Delete, not notable - filter Google results and you get less than 500 hits. Megan1967 05:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as this is a website, the Wikipedia:Alexa test is much more applicable than the google test in this case, and it has a site rank of over 3.5 million [8]. In the past, anything over 100,000 has been perceived as relatively non-notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm dropdeadgorgias, before you start thinking your so smart its www.b0g.org not.com and it is ranked 22,004. So it is notable by your standards. (Posted by User:Fmsmoothie)
  • Delete: website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Curps 23:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. B0g.org has over 20000 user accounts - surely that has some note. The forums are not the main section of the site - the articles are where all the commenting takes place. Although wiki is not a place for advertising websites, b0g.org is one of the predominant user run (rather than administrator run) humor forums on the net.
  • Keep. This is a well known site and deserves a place here.
  • Delete, spamvertisement. GRider\talk 18:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If goatse.cx deserves an article of its own, there is no reason to erase this one. ShrimpEr 20:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note: as of 20:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC), disregarding anon votes and those who just signed up to vote here, the voting is 9-3 in favor of deletion. CryptoDerk 20:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smyslovye Galucinacii[edit]

A stub article on a Russian rock band (it doesn't say so, though). The band kind of sucks too. So, I propose to delete it. Grue 14:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep after Mikkalai's edits. And move to Smyslovye Gallucinacii, there is a typo in the title. Grue 12:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. No reference in AMG, 23 Google hits. JoaoRicardo 19:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note however that if you search for Russian spelling, "Смысловые Галлюцинации" you'll get a whopping 45800 Google hits. Still the article as is is worse than substub. Grue 20:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thanks for the tip, Grue. I'll be keeping my vote based on the lack of AMG entry, but it would also be nice if you or someone else could say what this means in Russian. If it's a common term, then the many Google hits may be ruled out. JoaoRicardo 02:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Babelfish translates it as "Semantic Hallucinations" Kappa 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment. After this I went to give a closer look to those Google hits and saw that they all are from music-related domain names. I now believe this band is notable in Russia, but this article is currently useless. I don't know how to rewrite it (I will not write just "Smyslovye Galucinacii is a Russian band") and seems no one else is inclined to do it. So I will keep my vote to delete. However, if someone wants to create a decent article or a decent stub later, I believe they should be able to in spite of this deletion. JoaoRicardo 03:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy candidate as "short, no context". Even less useful than London Calling was. Delete unless expanded (but keep if expanded). keep, ty Mikkalai Kappa 02:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please hold off voting for this page for 8 hours. I will salvage the article tonight. I am not a fan of modern Russian popular music, but it is indeed underrepresented. Even Mashina Vremeni (Time Machine, whatever) is missing. Mikkalai 19:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Good work Mikkalai. 220.244.224.72 16:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I did bare minimum, to establish notability. The rest of the job is for others. Mikkalai 17:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The above congratulations were from me. We now have a good stub for building on. Capitalistroadster 17:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:39, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Institute of Destination Architects and Designers[edit]

Ad for a non-notable organisation. Destination architect is an alleged neologism (see this VfD for details). --Deathphoenix 14:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, if other such association/organisations are referenced, otherwise remove

  • The above vote is by the anon author, 128.173.124.43 who, despite the actions on other articles, did not blank this article or its VfD notice. --Deathphoenix 03:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 19:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-extant. humblefool® 20:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now the anon contributor started spamming wikipedia with numerous "destination arhitects". Mikkalai 21:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo. Delete the articles on individual destination architects as well. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:38, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Martin[edit]

Delete or merge or redirect to Benjamin Vanderford--ZayZayEM 14:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • i Go merge & Delete --ZayZayEM 14:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Benjamin Vanderford. Having an article on the event is enough. JoaoRicardo 19:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here really worth merging. Megan1967 01:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable Radiant! 10:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as a redirect without target. jni 13:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Destination/Coastal Architects[edit]

This page redirects to Institute of Destination Architects & Designers, a page on VfD (see two entries above) --Deathphoenix 15:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)Withdrawing this request and listing in Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --Deathphoenix 02:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I believe this should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion after--and if--the other pages get deleted. JoaoRicardo 19:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I forgot about that. Thanks, I've listed it in the appropriate page, and will remove the {{subst:vfd}} from the article. --Deathphoenix 02:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Institute of Destination Architects & Designers[edit]

Another way of writing Institute of Destination Architects and Designers, another page up for VfD (see above). --Deathphoenix 15:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. They are actually using this article in their own website. The link which reads "What's a destination architect or designer?" on the main page leads here. JoaoRicardo 19:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the anon author Special:Contributions/128.173.124.43 blanked the article about four hours after this listning. --Deathphoenix 03:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As JoaoRicardo wrote. --ThomasK 14:17, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

For what it's worth, in my experience Joy is scrupulously fair when closing votes, and I support her decision at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joeflynn. This article is a perfect example of why it makes sense to err on the side of keeping if there is any question. The article can always be renominated, as this one has been. dbenbenn | talk 22:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parallel Path[edit]

This article was on VfD 2005-01-05 and the admin closing the case decided on "no consensus". I don't think the article has improved since and the main contributor opposes merging to perpetual motion. He now "clarifies" in the article, that it doesn't fall within the definitions of perpetual motion typically offered. So, seemingly, it falls into other definitions of perpetual motion, obviously the weasel-worded ones which will be accepted by the US PTO. He further clarifies, that he can't give further explainations, due to non-disclosure agreements and the like.

In summary, I strongly suggest deleting this article as quackery, and will be the first re-adding it to the Wikipedia, if and when Parallel Path becomes a commercial success and/or gets a publication in an IEEE Journal or another serious source.

Pjacobi 15:23, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

  • Delete, no original research. Fire Star 16:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reason. --BM 18:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that on the previous occasion the article was submitted to VfD under the title Joeflynn. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joeflynn.) Admin Joy Stovall processed the vote. It seems to have been Delete:7 (counting the nominator, who unfortunately didn't actually vote, but did say it was original research, or a hoax); Merge:1; Keep:3 (2 were marginal/weak keeps, and one was the author of the article, who at that point had only edited this article and the VfD on it.) This was construed by Joy as "no consensus to delete"; but she did change the title to Parallel Path, with the comment that Joeflynn was a nonsense title. I think the conclusion that there was no consensus was surprising, and that Joy was rather bending over backwards to keep the article. To arrive at a "no consensus" conclusion, she had to (1) count the Merge as a Keep; (2) give no consideration to the fact that 2 of the 3 keep votes were "weak"; (3) perhaps not count the nominators comment as a Delete; (4) ignore the fact that the only strong vote to keep was from the author; and (5) not have an opinion herself (or have a Keep opinion). If admins interpret this situation as "no consensus to delete", it looks like it basically has to be unanimous except for the author to delete an article. Hopefully, this time it can be deleted. --BM 18:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • To be fair to Joy_Stovall: A Merge is a Keep, as after a merger the original article title is not deleted. It's merely a Keep with extra toppings. And, whilst Wikipedia is not a democracy, 7/11 is less than 2/3, the standard guideline threshold. Merge to History of perpetual motion machines (where it can join the long line of people and companies and their excuses) if notable enough. Otherwise Delete. Uncle G 04:10, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
      • I understand how a Merge needs to be implemented. My question is how a vote in which there is only one outright Keep vote from the author of the article, with most other votes being 'Delete', and with 2 'Weak Keeps', and 1 'Merge', can be tallied as "no consensus to delete", with the outcome being that a "Merge" tag is placed on the article, easily deleted by the author, as actually happened. The sysops always point out that VfD is not actually a "vote", that they are trying to find the consensus, and the content of the discussion counts. But here we have a case where the sysop just mechanically tallied up the votes (and apparently didn't have any opinion of her own) and arrived at a ridiculous result. --BM 14:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. JoaoRicardo 19:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm convinced its the same 2/3 sock puppets that keep having a go at this article, under different names. I note they are never able to provide any reason for deletion, or show how or why it contravenes WIKI content guidelines. The emphasis always seems to be on 'votes for deletion', devoid of any reference to why this should happen. If all the votes for deletion are coming from the same 2/3 sock puppets, using different names, then what value so they have, exactly? There is no concensus for deletion of this page, among independent WIKI readers - only the sock puppets vote 100% delete. This page has been nominmated for deletion once already and survived, it should not be possible for the sock puppets to nominate 2 weeks later. It was a keep last time, to keep re-nominating every 2 weeks until the sock puppets get what they want, is simply absurd. Timharwoodx 20:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No person attacks without proof, and the people you are accusing are all users in good standing. Oh ya, delete as nonsence and get Joy's attention and ask her why she didn't delete before. You can't break the laws of physics, or, as a friend of mine said: Bad things happen. humblefool® 20:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • But the page has already survived deletion. This is sour grapes. Timharwoodx 20:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it didn't. Joy added a merge tag, which you so helpfully removed. Really, please. Open histories, my friend. humblefool® 20:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • A true Wikipedian would respect the process. So merge the content, if you feel that way. Nothing stopping you. Only sock puppets disrespect the WIKI process. I find it fascinating someone is watching this vote for deletion 24/7, and every time I add a comment, an answer INSTANTLY* comes back. Is this not proof these guys are orchestrated sock puppets? Timharwoodx 20:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Tabbed browsing IS amazing, isn't it? No, do you have an argeument for the merits of this article, or are you going to insult me all day? I would also note that the only reason I can reply to you quickly is that you are replying just as fast. humblefool® 20:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Humble, you are right. I overlooked the merge tag that Joy placed on the article, which got deleted by Timharwoodx. I still think it was a bit of stretch for Joy not to find a consensus to delete in the last vote, but having arrived at "no consensus to delete", it was a good decision to put the merge tag on there, and it was bad faith by User:Timharwoodx to delete it. I'm not going to merge it now, since really there is nothing to merge, and it is better to have the article on display as we vote again. --BM 21:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original nonsense. —Korath (Talk) 22:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless this brings us closer to discovering the Flux capacitor. Rhobite 01:47, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • My vote is the same as last time: merge into Perpetual motion or History of perpetual motion machines, and get rid of this crackpot scheme. (I think the latter article is a better fit for this invention, since it has a list of such 'technologies'.) Beyond the scope of this VfD, User:Timharwoodx should be reminded not to disregard admin's evaluation of VfD consensus—particularly when it's bent very favorably his way. --TenOfAllTrades 03:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you realize the "Merge" is counted as "Keep"? It means that some or all of text should be transferred intact to another article, and the old article redirected so that the edit history is preserved for copyright reasons. What text from this travesty would you transfer *intact* to Perpetual Motion? It should be deleted and if anyone thinks that this so-called invention is notable enough to merit a mention in Perpetual Motion, and can convince the other editors, he can add a sentence or two to Perpetual Motion. However, that is not a merge. --BM 14:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I do realize that, thanks. As I stated, reference to this best belongs in History of perpetual motion machines; I'll edit my above vote to reflect that. I think some of the text can be paraphrased into that article. Creating a redirect also reduces the likelihood this article will be recreated in the future. Since it's one of the perpetual motion devices on which the USPTO was foolish enough to grant a patent, it has some notability and I don't think it should be removed entirely. I'm an academic and very sensitive to the issue of citing sources, so I might be more prone than most to err on the side of caution with a merge to preserve history—even if the text is paraphrased rather than directly quoted. --TenOfAllTrades 15:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to History of perpetual motion machines, since this device has been granted a patent I believe it is worthy enough for a mention there, and add redirect. Megan1967 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge or redirect: nonnotable crankery. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete again. --Carnildo 23:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I presume I'm the only person on this thread to have seen a working flux core motor. I mean, you can make them for $50 with a laser cutter, whats the problem? Stuck on circuitry? Maybe I should copy some of these comments, and drag them up in 10 years time, when flux core motors are used everywhere in everything. I am still amazed that a device that is 100% in accordance with the laws of physics, shipping in mass production to commercial products as I type, should cause so much controversy. The customers are happy, and no refunds have been requested thus far. I'd love to say what products it is in presently that you guys are buying, but that would be a betrayal of confidence on my part. The system claims only 69% magnetic efficiency, as I set out in my Nexus article, published in several different languages, internationally. The idea a magnetic field at 69% efficient is some form of 'perpetual motion,' is so deeply stupid as to be comical in its sheer ignorance. Now we've had this request for deletion nonsense twice, may I point out thus Perpetual motion machines are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way science cannot explain (yet). Since this systems only deals with fields that are 69% efficient, that is well below 100%, and does *NOT* enable it to be accorded to the category perpetual motion, as per the WIKI definition. A vote to merge is a vote to keep, and as I have demonstrated, perpetual motion is the wrong category. There is no new physics here WHATSOEVER, or indeed an electrical energy gain claimed. Just a clever commercial engineering implementation of flux manipulaton. This page should be protected, so we don't get the same lame sock puppets, wasting everyone's time every 3 weeks. Timharwoodx 00:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That presumption would seem to be correct, unless you're willing to tell us what devices incorporate this technology. Preferably commercial, off-the-shelf products, please—even just one would help. The technique is patented, so I'm a bit troubled by the perceived need for complete secrecy.
A second concern is that I'm finding the explanations of the technology to be a bit difficult to understand. I'm not exactly sure what is being claimed. Other web sites describing the devices (including the one from Flynn Research[10], and the article by Tim Harwood[11]) don't seem to make the capabilities and functional mechanism of the device entirely clear, though perhaps I'm missing something.
Finally, the technology's credibility isn't helped by the company it keeps on the web. A Google search for "parallel path" Flynn [12] turns up only 81 hits. Of the subset related to Flynn's device (about half) most are sites devoted to over-unity type devices ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) or conspiracy theories ([18]).
As Pjacobi says, many editors here would be more comfortable if this device were mentioned in, say, an IEEE publication. I suspect most would probably settle for a story in Popular Mechanics, actually. When I hear hoofbeats I think of horses, not zebras. When I hear about a new ultra-efficient technology being sold only in secret and only discussed by its inventor and some over-unity enthusiasts, it triggers some skepticism.
Incidentally, I would urge you to avoid using the term sockpuppet unless you really mean it. It's an unnecessary and unwarranted slur against the editors in this discussion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:26, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Will Leonard[edit]

Non-notable person. - snoyes 16:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • deleteGeni 16:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. as 'swing youth' he won apple computer's national electronic media competition, google it. — unc_topdawg 18:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • As suggested, I've googled +"Swing Youth" +Apple. There is nothing remotely related. Ditto +Swingyouth +Apple. By patiently trying +PRnd1 +Apple, I found only this page that says PRND1 was a "previous song entry". It also says the contest is from the Tar Heel Mac Users Group on the UNC campus, not national. If he did win a national Apple electronic media competition, nobody on the Internet is talking about it. Delete this vanity. Samaritan 00:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, vanity. JoaoRicardo 19:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. at0 22:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Note that all of the anons who've edited the page have blanked it entirely at least once, so a case could be made for speedy. (I'd probably blank it too, if my girlfriend was described in her own article as "the Italian Stallion II".) —Korath (Talk) 01:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Monk Bretton 01:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 22:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Plastino[edit]

Non-notable person. - snoyes 16:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Only claim to notability is that she is the girlfriend of a non-notable undergraduate. Delete. Uncle G 17:39, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 19:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. at0 22:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it somewhat distressing that "the official most beautiful woman in the world" is compared to Sylvester Stallone, and/or a male horse. Delete! Samaritan 00:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. Rje 05:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Flarion[edit]

Vanity. Not especially notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Vague and with unverifiable claims. Delete. Uncle G 17:46, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Keep. It gets an impressive total of 81,000 Google hits. I've cleaned up the article with information from their website. This company seems to be making news all over the Internet. Unless someone with more knowledge of the telecommunications market assures this is just hype, I'm voting to keep. JoaoRicardo 19:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I find it amusing that when (aside from articles and prepositions) the only two words in common across the versions are "company" and "wireless", this is still "clean up" rather than "complete rewrite". ☺ You're too modest. Much better. Verifiable and specific. Keep. Uncle G 00:34, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thanks Uncle G and Samaritan. :-) JoaoRicardo 02:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Great catch JoaoRicardo! Keep. Samaritan 00:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, needs expansion. Megan1967 01:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks to the good work by Joao Ricardo. 220.244.224.72 16:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 22:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Posh Spice Takes It Up The Arse[edit]

What a load of drivel. Deb 18:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Drivel, yes; true drivel, also yes. (Note: I mean that this really did exist as an anti-David Beckham soccer chant, not that it accurately describes their sexual practices.) But, that said, I don't think it's notable enough to warrant its own article. Delete. Bearcat 20:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and yes, it's nowhere as notable as any other member of Category:Football songs and chants. Delete. Samaritan 23:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable RJFJR 00:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Victoria Beckham, already mentioned there. Kappa 00:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't deserve it's own article, and I can't imagine anyone genuinely searching for it to warrant a redirect. --Lawlore 00:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 00:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to chuckle at the humour of people worrying that a redirect from Potatoe to Dan Quayle might be "insulting" and "POV", but aren't blinking an eye at a redirect from Posh Spice Takes It Up The Arse to Victoria Beckham. Delete. Uncle G 01:03, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
    • Personnally I just felt potatoe should be redirected somewhere with relevant information, rather than deleted. Likewise this one Kappa 01:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, I find the article title offensive and un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some people who attend football games are crude morons. What they specifically yell is normally not encyclopedia material, and it isn't in this case. --BM 02:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Could be an ofensive redirect. JoaoRicardo 03:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 23skidoo 04:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This article was deleted already a while back. Recreation of deleted material. If for some reason that doesn't apply, Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreated deleted material. GRider\talk 22:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not finding a record of a prior deletion decision. Do you remember when it was? If we can find it, then we can speedy delete. Otherwise, regular delete. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If you do find it, is it the same contents/contributor or different? Kappa 03:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: trivia. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --ZayZayEM 06:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sean Neuerburg[edit]

Vanity. Ground 18:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • To be fair, that appears to be a typo; "Sean Neuerburg" returns two pages of results. Ground 18:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim to notability. JoaoRicardo 03:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

See discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Social justice for the CFD that was previously erroneously placed here.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW keep. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social justice[edit]

Social justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is full of original research and is unencyclopedic and reads like an academic paper or article trying to push a certain point of view. ModernGeek (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep is not a valid AfD suggestion, is it? Greglocock (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - impenetrable jargonese. Greglocock (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Article has been here since the beginning and social justice is a well-known concept; no attempt by nom to pursue WP:BEFORE was done before nomination, and this feels disruptive, so a speedy keep can indeed be asked for. Nate • (chatter) 07:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Would say Speedy Keep but in addition to a lousy nomination, SK requires no delete !vote at all, seemingly without respect to their validity/merit. AfD is not cleanup, the article is self-evidently not all original research such that deletion is needed, "impenetrable jargonese" is not relevant, etc. Subject is obviously notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the topic is notable but it does indeed need work. For example, the lead credits the term to Luigi Taparelli which seems quite a dubious claim as he used it in Italian in the 1840s while the OED has William Thompson using it in English in 1824. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid deletion rationale presented. Resolute 19:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One wonders the intentions behind this nomination. The fact that a reader might struggle to understand an article does not mean it should be eliminated. That it may collide with a reader’s political views does not merit deletion. Original research means that an idea is new. The article is about a key concept with a long history and an obvious notability, delineated in the article itself, and featured in most literature about justice. It is older than when Plato and Socrates wrestled with it. The term itself was coined in the 19th Century, an elder among us. That the article needs work, there is no doubts. But to lightly delete the work of hundreds of editors through the years is not part of the Wikipedia spirit. Moreover, to totally free this article from its jargon would mean to dilute it. After all, Wikipedia is to educate. Rather than tagging an article for deletion with a few words that fail to provide a reasonable argument users should work to improve it. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a mechanism of review in place for accepting these types of nominations (WP:BEFORE)? Caballero//Historiador ☊ 04:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs work, but deleting it won't solve the problem. -The Great iShuffle (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More importantly the "original research" should be removed if it exists, and the page improved - but that goes for everywhere in wikipedia. Deleting does not fix the content. Koncorde (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs cleanup like a few other million other articles but not deletion. Here are some reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep not a valid reason for deletion.2.98.117.9 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:23, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rutti[edit]

This has got to be a hoax. Deb 19:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • If it's not, it's not notable. Delete. humblefool® 20:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense (hoax) RJFJR 00:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax, possibly even vanity based on single Google hit for "Rutti Harnosand" [19] --Lawlore 00:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Even if it was true, Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary (nor is Wiktionary, AFAIK). JoaoRicardo 03:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Telelogophobia[edit]

Neologism that doesn't seem to have widespread usage. 2 hits, one being Urban Dictionary, which seems like a more appropriate place for it. Niteowlneils 19:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to -phobia, no merge. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-6 23:12 Z
  • Delete. Looks like nonsense. RJFJR 23:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a joke. JoaoRicardo 03:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to comment that my hearing is apparently in good working order. ☺ Uncle G 04:24, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • This is one of my first articles I wrote from scratch, and apparently it offended more than a few other users, and I apologize. I'm new at this, and you hold much higher standards than I thought. I won't damage your community any further with more contributions. 63.226.184.127 12:04, 2005 Feb 7 (according to history Uncle G 05:23, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))
  • Comment. I am sorry if you got the impression we don't want your contributions. You shouldn't see this as something against you, but against the article. Many people here believe articles are a product of the comunity and therefore have no single authors. So they may not see this as your article, but simply as an article that should get deleted. As least that is how I think. I am a newbie on Wikipedia, and I have done things which others have undone afterwards. It may seem harsh at first, but we get used to this processes. I hope you stay. JoaoRicardo 19:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to echo JoaoRicardo: My very first article ever, back when I was anonymous instead of pseudonymous, was nominated for deletion as soon as I wrote it. I didn't take it personally. (After all, I was anonymous.) I argued the case for the article on its merits (as an anonymous user, no less), all the while editing and expanding it in response to the VFD discussion, and at the end of the process the article was in fact retained. Uncle G 05:23, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Comment: actually it's not the article that's the problem, it's the topic, which is a phenomenon that sounds funny and gets almost no google hits. The article is actually much better written than a large proportion of wikipedia. So please don't get upset that it was (mis)identified as nonsense or a joke, because we do get a lot of those around here. Kappa 01:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Many people may have construed this article as a joke, but it isn't. It's an unusual phenomenon, but it does exist. There are certain people who have unusual or irrational phobias, that are so unbelievable, you naturally dismiss it as a joke. There are even weirder phobias. You may have seen talk shows about this topic, where people speak out about fearing for their lives in the presence of dogs, clowns, or are even afraid of touching mushrooms, or lettuce! These strange, offbeat phobias are reality, and this article is legit, trust me. And the existence of those Yahoo groups devoted to the subject, with hundreds of members, should back up the article's credibility. And yes, some members of those groups are extreme telelogophobics who have even had nightmares involving certain "scary" logos. Just thought I'd shed some light on this.
  • Delete: prank. "This article is legit, trust me." Sure buddy. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, delete the damn thing then. See if I care. So much for "free content" and "diversity". Sheesh! I mean I try to explain the whole thing and get flamed for it. Just shows what kind of people frequent this site.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

LaserNet[edit]

Nothing more than an advertisement for the product. EagleOne 20:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advert. Rje 20:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CDC (talk) 21:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--ZayZayEM 01:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

José Lujano[edit]

This is a non-notable vanity article. CDC (talk) 21:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. at0 22:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, alas it is. Samaritan 00:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 01:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable now, and perhaps never will be. JoaoRicardo 03:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tir'su[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable, or possibly a prank, as it's VERY difficult to believe anything connected to D&D would have zero hits. "Tir'su" githyanki=0 and "Tir'su" dragons=1 unrelated. Niteowlneils 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Hoax at worst, 20sideddicecruft at best, but tiramisu is delicious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delicious. Er, delete. Almost certainly someone's homegrown extension, ie original "research". —Korath (Talk) 22:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Niteowlneils' argument. JoaoRicardo 03:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge into the githyanki article, along with the reference as to where this stuff came from. This seems to be right on the border of "official", Dragon magazine's had a lot of stuff come through its pages that wound up in future sourcebooks. Bryan 07:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is no hoax, read my editorial note on the origin of the term. --- Samuel M. Wright (169.232.227.204)
  • Merge and redirect to Githyanki. —Korath (Talk) 22:46, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect Kappa 02:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Far, far too minor to merit its own article. -Sean Curtin 03:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep otherwise Merge and redirect to Githyanki. Megan1967 05:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: gamecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Gamaliel 04:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. I'll redirect it. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

War of July 1974[edit]

The events referred in this article/stub is explained in more detail at Cyprus_dispute#The_Turkish_occupation_of_Cyprus. I have already changed the links, and in the process orphaned the article. This article looks like an attempt at providing exposure for the website linked in the page, and by means of this link to go around NPoV policy of Wikipedia. at0 22:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete rather than redirect as the title is not instructive. at0 22:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Covered elsewhere, and this title is useless. --BM 23:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cyprus dispute. Megan1967 01:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicates (or at least it would duplicate if left to grow) content on Cyprus dispute, as Megan1967 reminded. I won't vote for a redirection because this does not seem to be a common term one would search Wikipedia for. Its only Google hits are from Wikipedia mirrors. JoaoRicardo 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cyprus dispute - Skysmith 11:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:20, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Coline delaporte[edit]

Can't find any reference so nominating as non-notable. Sc147 22:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Hoax. A 16-year-old girl living in NY with healing powers? She'd be all over the media, and at least turn up one match on Google. As it is, she isn't, and doesn't. --Lawlore 01:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a "world's phenomenon" would certainly have at least one Google hit. — Ливай | ☺ 01:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible hoax. (I mean the article, not the girl. But the girl is propably a hoax too.) JoaoRicardo 03:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mozespoker[edit]

Patent nonsense, unencyclopedic, zero hits on Google. Has lasted for five days already. Philthecow 23:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the universe is far too likely to perish if this game becomes popular. Kappa 23:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. RJFJR 23:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Um, smilie faces?! Jeshii 02:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 03:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A game sucide bombers play? Nonsense. The Jacobin 03:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The section on terrorism has been removed, along with the smileys. The rest should really be kept, as it is a piece of culture that must be kept alive! We can't just let it fade away, that would be a great loss.

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

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

The votes were 2 delete, 1 neutral. dbenbenn | talk 23:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fighting Ducks[edit]

A college hockey team. Nothing to merge that's not already in the parent article. —Korath (Talk) 23:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

(The article has since been moved to Oregon Ducks Hockey Team. —Korath (Talk) 01:04, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC))
  • Neutral. Harmless, might have potential, but losing this tiny stub would be no big deal. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 07:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 19:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Diss tape[edit]

About hip hop rivalries, on which we already have a nice, long article. The term isn't a proper nor used one, the one sentence of information included is already present in the hip hop ricalries article, so I think it should be deleted with nno redirect; no need to merge (the only page it linked with is Murder Inc. Records, which I have already relinked to the proper article....on second thought, redirect.--b. Touch 23:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • 244 web hits, many not Wikipedia mirrors; just one relevant Usenet hit (murder inc diss tape). I would redirect - if nothing else, it would discourage re-creation of an article here... Samaritan 00:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, article as it stands in un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Jeshii 02:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per B Touch. JoaoRicardo 03:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Er ... B Touch voted "delete with no redirect". Uncle G 15:55, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete as per B Touch. Uncle G 15:55, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
    • The common search term argument is persuasive. Redirect as per JoaoRicardo. Uncle G 03:22, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 18:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd House[edit]

This page was already deleted after a vote. I have moved the archive of that process to the bottom of the page. Please tell me if that is the correct thing to do in this circumstance, this is my first VfD. The current revision does not demonstrate any significance. Personally I don't think any dorm, no matter who slept there, needs more than a few sentences on the main page of a university. GabrielF 20:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. This article seems to have been re-created after having been deleted as a result of the earlier VfD basically for the reason that you state. That makes it a candidate for speedy deletion. I see from the history that you added the {{delete}} to it, which was correct. An anonymous editor removed it, probably the same anonymous editor who recreated the article, although the IP address is different. I'm replacing the speedy-delete tag, but I have no confidence it will stay there without a battle. --BM 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually {{deleteagain}} is the tag for this situation. Uncle G 00:39, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
    • I have removed the {{deleteagain}} tag because this is no longer the substab that was deleted before. I am abstaining on whether to keep this version. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It wasn't deleted before only because it was a stub or sub-stub; among the reasons it was deleted before was that college dormitories generally are not notable and the article didn't establish that this dormitory was any exception. It still does not. It should be speedy-deleted, per Wikipedia policy, as the recreation of an article that has been deleted through VfD. If the previous decision was incorrect, or someone wants to argue that they have a new version that does not have the problems of the previous version, it should be submitted to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, where the burden of achieving consensus will be on those who want to reinstate the article. Otherwise, anybody can re-create an article at will and argue that the new version overcomes the objections of the previous VfD, and VfD will have no meaning at all. --BM 14:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete again. Ths information is already (still!) largely covered in the Housing section of the Caltech page. If someone wants to break out a California Institute of Technology (Housing) article (or something similar) there is a case to be made for that. Articles on each individual House constitute excessive granularity. --TenOfAllTrades 16:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have speedy deleted it as re-creation of an article voted for deletion. I have then made it into a redirect to California Institute of Technology and protected it in order to prevent further re-creation vandalism. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd House (Archived)[edit]

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


OK, are college dorms encyclopedic, in this case at a very notable institution? It looks like there are several of these created today. I've only submitted one of them. --BM 00:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looking at the California Institute of Technology page, there's room for expansion. A photo; history; famous ex-residents. Wikipedia isn't paper. Dbenbenn 00:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: No evidence of being encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 01:14, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dunster House, one of the undergraduate houses at Harvard has an article. Al Gore lived there while at Harvard. (I lived there too -- is under-achieving notable?) So it looks like there is a precedent for this type of article. Caltech being the alma mater of many famous people, an article similar to the Dunster House one could probably be written about Lloyd House too. Still, I'm not sure about this as a precedent, since there must be a gazillion named college dorms. --BM 02:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "It's a dormitory" isn't encyclopedic. If there's something special about it that makes it notable, then the article should say so. Shimeru 02:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 04:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten to provide evidence of notablity. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think this needs an article. Other contributions from this author include Avery House, Dabney House and Ruddock House. Maybe Merge these into California Institute of Technology and Delete. Keeping these would open room for more college dorms and it's impossible to find how many of them are notable and how many are not. utcursch 12:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. So someone famous might have slept there. Well, so what? We're not going to create articles on the beds that Albert Einstein slept in, so this doesn't make it notable. If this had, say, won an award for it's architectural design or was a major landmark then it would be worth keeping, but the current article has nothing of note whatsoever in it. Since Wikipedia has a decent search engine facility, we don't need this substub as anyone searching the name would get Caltech anyway, which has enough details on these houses to suffice. Some of the other houses aren't stubs, but I'd vote Delete for the rest of these houses too. Average Earthman 17:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This substub contains less information about its topic than the parent article, but doesn't mention that fact. Kappa 18:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 19:43, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. IMHO this article, Dabney House, and Ruddock House all meet the speedy deletion criterion of "Very short articles with little or no context." I have refrained from voting on this for a day to see whether the contributor was going to write articles on these dorms, but it appears as if these one-sentence statements are it. These dorms could be listed under California Institute of Technology if they are not already, but it's not even worth describing this as a merge, since rewriting the single-sentence articles into a list is essentially the same as just creating the list. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment I was going to see whether the dorms were already listed at California Institute of Technology and list them there if they were not. All eight dorms (yes, Lloyd House and friends are inaccurate) are aleady listed; see the Housing section. In a nice tabular format. With a little picture of the logo/coat-of-arms, name of membership, colors, slogan, motto, and a link to the dorm's website. There is less than no need for breakout articles that provide an inaccurate subset of material that is nicely presented in the CalTech article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, dorms are inherently nn. Wyss 22:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a sub-stub on one dorm of many at the California Institute of Technology. hfool 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as it lacks any content. Had it looked like the Dunster House article mentioned above, it would have been keepable. But it doesn't. / up+land 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's actually something to say about it. I wouldn't consider any individual dorms from my alma mater notable, and I see no reason to assume Caltech's are any more so. Isomorphic 10:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, dormcruft. Edeans 04:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful information Masterhomer 01:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Vote placed after voting had closed)

  • Not sure which vote this unsigned comment by User:Vacuum is referring to, but it doesn't matter. Voting is not "closed" until whatever time a sysop gets around to acting on the discussion. If that takes longer than five days, people can continue to vote after five days. VfD discussions are guaranteed to last at least five days but can and do last longer, and all votes in them are valid. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old: "You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(End of Lloyd_House archive)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

This was never listed on WP:VFD. The article in question is just a redirect anyway. dbenbenn | talk 16:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesus of Suburbia[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_6&oldid=1142647900"