Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[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 8 Keeps / 3 Merge and redirect / 1 Delete. Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

J.D. Frazer[edit]

It's not worth to keep this article. Or it's improved or deleted. --Neigel von Teighen 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Could an admin have a look at all these votes? I find it highly suspicious that everyone would vote in the same way, contrary to the MO of everyone else on every other VfD item (usually by using "Keep"). Also, most of these people have almost no contributions other than to create a user page and vote on this site. A couple of the accounts appear to be "stealth" accounts in that they were used sporadically to make one or two edits a month, and then suddenly they vote on this account. --Deathphoenix 02:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC). Never mind, looks like everyone's looking into it already.

BTW A quick snytax analysis of the majority of the following vote against deletion entries shows them to be written by the same person.

-- not reallly. you'll note similarities, but the use of the "vote against" would be a very striaght forward notation to make for as the prior votes carried it.

edit by Marcus22 --Epideme 22:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It would be fair to say that has already been discussed, and while a large number of votes were cast by first-edit users, they were not the same person. You have only been a member since 17:59, 24 Jan 2005, so can hardly be called a long-term member, and your contributions appear to be only to vote to delete (even your own article). Epideme 22:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the relevance of that is ??? --Marcus22 13:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Most of us are probably fairly new to wikipedia, although I have used it before many times, I only edited very recently. We agree that the article needs a great deal more work, and will have a complete reworking within 4 days. However, having gotten involved in editing now, I will no doubt take a much greater interest in the wikipedia and in correcting articles. Please do not suggest that simply because someone is new they are false. Epideme 02:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • vote against deletion. I echo kickstart70's views that if we delete this article we'll have to delete others, just to be "fair." In addition to J.D.'s contributions in the cartoons, he is much more then a simple cartoonist. Abaron
  • vote against deletion. If we delete this, how about the numerous other minor celebs that have pages here? Like the people from Slashdot or some minor character from a cut-rate 1960's sitcom? Full disclosure: I am the head moderator at UserFriendly and the initial creator of this page. I have a feeling this is a grudge request for deletion. Kickstart70 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A minor celeb he may be, but as the first person to run a daily online web cartoon, and as the first web comic to be ported to newspapers, he is an important and vital addition to the encyclopedia. Epideme 23:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC). Modified to keep Epideme 22:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • vote against. agreement with above.
  • The nominator, by saying that this wiki should be improved, shows that s/he needs to read the deletion policy page, which specifically states that pages that need improvement are NOT valid for a deletion nomination, at best they require a "needs attention" flag. JD is an amazing comedian, artist, and tech and deserves a mention as much as anyone! JeffUK (Vote Against Deletion)
  • Vote against. Seconding Kickstart's reasoning. C. A. Jenson/krikkert
  • Vote against. The nominator claims "It's not worth to keep this article" but fails to say why that is. As can be seen by the votes here, there is a great deal of potential for this article, given time.
  • edit by Ston --Plek 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote against. Why in the world would you delete information about the first person to publish a web comic? That's analagous to deleting an article about John Glenn, because we all know lots of people have orbited the earth since. The guy had a book in Amazon's top ten in the humor category for crying out loud. Leave the article in place, perhaps expand it.
  • Vote against. Nothing to say that others haven't already said above.
  • Vote against. Agreeing with Kickstart and others for all the reasons mentioned in this article. Klaranth DragonWriter
  • Vote against. I agree with all comments above. The page should definitely be expanded, though. Michiel Helvensteijn
  • Vote against deletion. As the creative force behind a highly successful web comic - UserFriendly, J.D. Frazier would be worthy of inclusion, but his contributions go beyond that of a typical web-toonist. Utilizing humor, he has been a visible and vocal advocate for the open source software movement since the strip's debut in November of 1997. It should also be noted that the strip has been online continuously since that time. In addition, the standards he has set (and consistently maintained) for the electronic community that evolved around the comic strip have allowed it to become a favored source for not only general discussions, but one which also provides significant contributions in terms of collaborative technical support in a positive, non-threatening manner. As the creator of this presence, his inclusion in this wiki is merited. Dire Lobo 01:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - looks like we've got a horde of UF forum-goers making their presence known. I hate to tell you this, guys, but your votes aren't going to count much. Carpetbaggers don't carry much weight. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not all of us are carpetbaggers...look at our contribution history. Past that, there are very valid points here and I haven't seen anything that I would consider a valid point for deletion, even if it were for something I didn't particularly like on Wikipedia. Kickstart70 02:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added user identification tags to the unmarked votes. Contrary to what Kickstart70 says, all the voters thus far, except Kickstart70 and Krikkert, are first-edit users (well, as if that wasn't obvious to begin with). --Plek 02:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • In my case, I didn't even realize you could register on Wikipedia. But before registering, I've used it extensively and made several edits. I understand how this flood of voting might seem suspicious, though. :) Michiel Helvensteijn
  • Alright, so let's discuss what the reasons are for keeping and deletion. He is the creator of a very popular comic strip that has been running for over 7 years and is syndicated in multiple newspapers. I notice there are no VfDs for the Wikipedia page on the strip itself, so I believe that the creator of the strip should have a page. According to Alexa, the site is ranked 17165 in popularity according to its rankings. Other strips' creators have pages that are not disputed. How about you give us a chance to provide content? Kickstart70 02:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • So improve the article. And please stop people coming over from UF for the sole purpose of voting against deletion, because it doesn't help at all, as you should know if you've been here long enough. Keep and expand. Raven42 03:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Article much improved. I think that if we get rid of the VfD then no one is going to keep coming here (FWIW, I -did- make a request for registered users to come voice their opinion here. I didn't think anyone would register specifically for that purpose. However, I don't control their extra-UserFriendly actions, so I can't do a whole lot about what they do here. Kickstart70 03:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, your request probably worked. However, I would have done a quite search for notability before voting. To tell you the truth, seeing all the flood voting just brought up my suspicions and I voted for an extreme delete before even making a notability check. Please realise that flood voting isn't the only way to make your voice heard. Often, it takes just one vote or comment with a good explanation and the veterans will vote for your side. --Deathphoenix 03:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong, Extreme! Delete. Normally, it would just be a delete, but I hate it when accounts that contribute much less than even me flood VfDs with their votes out of the blue. --Deathphoenix 02:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep. Okay, I looked into UF after getting an explanation from Epideme. UF appears notable enough, with an Alexa rank of 17,165. However, I agree with Raven42, as I explained to Epideme, VfD flood votes out of the blue from new users look highly suspicious. --Deathphoenix 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I can understand why we don't explicitly say "no new user voting", but I wonder if it might be a good idea to update the {{vfd}} tag to say that new users should probably write on the talk page or make comments instead of actually voting? This kind of flood voting feels like we just got Slashdotted or something. --Deathphoenix 03:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • sorry to hit the system so hard - "UFies" are a fairly loyal bunch. Apologies if it caused any consternation. It has gotten me more interested in becoming a more regular contributor (if you'll be patient with me while I learn the nuances of the system)! There is a synonym for "Slashdotted" - It's known as "UFied" - and I think you've just experienced it - again, my humble apologies.
        • As far as raving fans go, they're relatively mild, if numerous. At least they can "rite good english", unlike some of the ones we get. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • That has a lot to do with the standards and expectations of the community (and it's members). Proper grammar and spelling is an expectation (of course as soon as I typed that I noticed an error in my previous "post" - and had to go fix it). I look forward to learning more about the Wiki and its processes. Dire Lobo 04:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Who does the final decision belong to for the deletion/etc.? When can we get that notice removed? Thx... Kickstart70 07:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep despite (normally suspicious) influx of first-edit voters. —Korath (Talk) 04:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Korath said. I can buy his books at Barnes & Noble, and published authors are notable. The article, when tagged, was a mess, but is much more coherent now. Niteowlneils 17:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to User Friendly. From all available evidence, he is notable solely as the author of the webcomic. Readers will be better informed if he is discussed in context with his creation. The User Friendly article is not yet so large that this won't fit in easily. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:40, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep —Mar·ka·ci 18:50, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
  • Keep, despite controversy surrounding the VfD process above, he is notable - some of his books have been published. Megan1967 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous, multiple published books, highly verifiable - David Gerard 16:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable. VfD submitter gave no reason for deletion, which isn't kosher. — Gwalla | Talk 22:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I've been a reader of User Friendly for some years and see no reason why JD shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry. However, I agree that it would be wiser to make his entry and User Friendly's entry one-in-the-same.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mgm|(talk) 21:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Silentlikeauburn and Silentlikeaubun[edit]

Band. Philosophy and assurances of artistic integrity presented; no evidence of notability presented. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • What utter pretentious crap. Delete with extreme prejudice. RickK 00:54, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • del Mikkalai 01:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Like the band, I am "Not afriad to write about what they feel, think, and believe", and that is Delete this crap --RoySmith 02:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete silentbikeauction or silentbutdeadly whatever the heck it calls itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 02:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and sent back to "the ashes of a decaying scene" from whence they came. Edeans 08:50, 1 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. (Anon votes do not count) -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moonn D)))[edit]

This is band vanity. They are also not the first tribute band to a tribute band, I know for a fact that Bjorn Again have a tribute band (as well as the several other bands using the same name). Rje 01:00, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable enough to be independently verifiable - David Gerard 01:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Del))). Mikkalai 02:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 02:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:52, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete They are an obscure band that few people are likely to have heard of and the article plainly says they are 'possibly' the first tribute band to a tribute band, which is description, in order to tell people something general about them. They are verifiable if people took the time to Google them (and you get 3980 results - so there!). God

Do not delete. They are notable under criterion #7 - certainly the most well-know drone doom metal band in their city. And it's not a band vanity, they are Polish and the article was posted by someone from England.

I have googled them and could not confirm that they are the most well known doom metal band in their city. Because verifiability is so important, please point to where this is documented. Thanks. Tuf-Kat 02:33, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Also, please note that assumptions are unwarranted. Encyclopedia articles do not assume, they give facts. Tuf-Kat 02:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

See the doom-metal.com bandlist (http://doom-metal.com/frame_bandlist.html). They are the only band in the drone doom subgenre listed in all of Poland. Not just in the town of Ilawa.

I see eleven Polish bands listed there. Or are you referring just to drone doom? (the term drone doom does not appear to be used at the site you linked to, nor in the article in question) If so, one band does not make a scene (and the guideline says it must be the most prominent band in a local scene). Also, the article itself must make the claim of notability. This means you need to change the text of the article to explain why this band is worth noting and preferably provide a citation or two. Tuf-Kat 22:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Zaraza The creation of Moonn D))) was announced quite a few months ago at the doom-metal.com forums, they are a legit band, even if somewhat obscure...but then, so is most of doom metal.
  • Delete. Mrmiths An unnotable contribution to drone doom.
  • Do not delete [Insig.] Delete? Why? Sure it could do with an edit to fix the statement so that it cannot be missinterpreted. Besides, it is the first drone/doom band to ever emerge from Poland. However a lot of people here seems to think that obscurity means unimportant. Only around 20 people speak volapük, so why not delete it's entry?
  • Do not delete. The article does mention drone doom, when it speaks of "uber-slow drone riffs". Doom-metal.com does have drone doom listed if you click on the "All Bands" bar at the top of the bandlist (top left of screen)and scroll through the genres to drone doom, many drone bands are listed there including Sunn O))) and Earth, the two bands which the author mentions. As for being the most prominent band in a scene, surely that means 99% of bands do not deserve to be listed here seeing as only one (maybe two) bands can invent a style of music. Eg, Napalm Death should be the only Grindcore band listed but they are not.
  • Do not delete [Doom-metal.com site owner] As far as I am aware the only Polish Drone band, the only Drone tribute band to a tribute band, infact probably the only doom tribute band to a doom tribute band. Perhaps not as well known as ABBA, actually pretty sure of that. But they are quite unique within the entire doom-metal genre. And in all honesty, what can it hurt? It's hardly a vanity entry as the band didn't submit it themselves, nor are after any claim for glory. And doom-metal as a whole is already a strugling enouth genre as it is.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mgm|(talk) 21:03, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Insecure.org[edit]

Advertisment for a website --nixie 01:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Ad. --Woohookitty 02:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. Bacchiad 07:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Nmap is very well known, but we don't need a separate article on the website it resides on. Merge it. Inter 09:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gotem(speech)[edit]

Neologism of local interest. --LeeHunter 00:53, 28 Jan 2005

  • Strong keep This article is about a new trend/slang within pop culture and therefore should keep its spot on wikipedia until it fades from pop culture. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I notice that bakuzjw has already put some of this material on his user page. Good idea. You can pretty much do what you like within very broad limits. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: This article has data beyond a definition and is a good example of how WikipediA is on the edge of society. I see absolutely no reason to delete this page... ever. - Singpolyma 16:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when is Wikipedia on the edge of society? It is long-established policy that Wikipedia does not accept articles and supposed facts which cannot be substantiated. RickK 21:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article does contain some useful information. 00:55, 28 Jan 2005 PhoenixPinion (contribs)
Please note that votes by the author of the article and anonymous voters are not counted. --LeeHunter 01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In my experience, votes by the author of the article (if a registered user) are counted. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected. --LeeHunter 02:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Phoenix,s etits are only at the gotem page, at the non-notable high-school page, who is claimed to be the birthplace of gotem, and here, hence he may be excluded under the policy "or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.". Mikkalai 02:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have made many other edits, only I have never registered. Of course, I understand you have no reason to believe me, but until one of my articles came under fire, I had no reason to register. PhoenixPinion
  • Delete If it's still around in a year, then put it on here. --Woohookitty 01:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local neologism that doesn't even clearly explain how it's different than "got 'em", if there's anything other than the spelling--removing punctuation from an expression doesn't seem very notable. Niteowlneils 01:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "growing in popularity" today will disappear tomorrow. Mikkalai 01:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable --nixie 02:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. The expression "Got 'em" (never spelled "Gotem") as an abbreviation for "Got them" is very old and long predates usage by Florida high school students. The new usage described for a single local high school in Florida is not notable, probably a fad that will end when they graduate or get bored and move on to the next fad. If an article about the very common English expression "Got 'em" is needed, then write it from scratch... there's nothing here that could be used. By the way, some of the "keep" votes above are suspicious and sound like an informally organized campaign to stuff the ballot box. -- Curps 02:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems common sense that an article that is incomplete should be expanded upon, not deleted.--PhoenixPinion
  • Delete - non notable, list it when it becomes popular. This is not a site to popularize stuff. kaal 03:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete all of the sockpuppet and anon votes. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • How is this verifiable? (See Wikipedia:Verifiability.) Has it been covered in a local newspaper, or picked up by academics of English who watch colloquialisms as their life's work, etc? If not, you won't likely be able to convince Wikipedians it should be in the encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.) A more appropriate place for this would be Urban Dictionary. Samaritan 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The way to counter lots of votes by new users is to vote against them, not to call them names. RSpeer 07:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. sjorford:// 09:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this word deserves a place in a wikimedia project it should be on Wiktionary without 'speech' in parentheses in the title. Please review policy before creating an article. Mgm|(talk) 09:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Er... the article says it: slang among Florida...high school students. Kind of very extremely limited. (Vanity we love you!) Gtabary 13:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn,vanity... Lectonar 14:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. No evidence presented of real use outside a very narrow circle. When it appears in printed dictionaries, even dictionaries of slang or regional English, or someone can cite an article about it in a newspaper of record like The New York Times, we can have an article about it. "everythign starts small, let this grow. itll stop growing on its own if its not meant to be" is really the key: Wikipedia is not for the promotion of new trends, however, worthy. It is an encyclopedia that presents already-well-established existing facts that are already of some degree of importance. I am not convinced that the supporters are sockpuppets, and I'm sorry they are having a rough introduction to Wikipedia.. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Localised neologism. Wikipedia isn't for things that might grow, it is for things that have. Someone creating an article for their baby because, hey, they might win a Nobel Prize would see it deleted pretty quickly, and the same for neologisms. Average Earthman 17:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. GRider\talk 18:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slangdef. --fvw* 23:32, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • DeleteSc147 02:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unconfirmable local slang. Jeltz talk 13:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Martg76 17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologistic vanity. --Angr 22:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another neologism. IF this word becomes popular, it could deserve an entry. TomTheHand 22:32, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. definition -Willmcw 23:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete the fierce defense only makes it seem more like a vanity page. LizardWizard 04:37, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edit. --32147 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Votes attached to personal attacks[edit]

Okay, I'm probably doing something controversial here, but I'm making a point about the unprofessional and harmful comments that have been left along with votes, by setting apart these votes like the "suspect votes" were set apart. I'm not denying that these votes count. I voted delete, by the way. RSpeer 20:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: What's done is done, but in the future please do not try to sort out the suspect or controversial votes. It makes it almost impossible to sort these discussions out at the end of the discussion period. Too much context is lost when the comments and/or replies are moved. Long threads like this are hard enough even when you do have a clear context and an edit history that matches the contributions. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (no vote)
Comment: I fully endorse RSpeers move of identifying unprofessional delete votes on VfD. These acts of immaturity towards potential newcomers does nothing to help Wikipedia's already degrading image. I voted delete as well, by the way. GRider\talk 20:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So complain on their talk pages. Messing with the order of comments and votes to express your discontent with their content isn't appropriate. --fvw* 20:47, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Another strong delete. To the sockpuppets: Give it up. Or "gotem." Either one. - Lucky 6.9 20:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Since when is a quip and/or a mild swipe at a sockpuppet considered to be a personal attack? I am a firm believer in not biting newbies and I did not mean this to be any sort of attack. - Lucky 6.9 19:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Newbies don't know what a sockpuppet is or why you're calling them that. Other people have managed to introduce suspicions of sockpuppetry while explaining what the term means and giving their evidence. RSpeer 05:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. I stand corrected. No change of vote, but I withdraw the quip. Thanks, Speer. - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just to spite the sockpuppets if for no other reason (and there are plenty). -R. fiend 03:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable/neologism/vanity, take your pick. I'm sure the attempts to ballot-stuff will be disregarded. Rje 03:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Ballot stuffing. I can not believe that people are making the claim that ballot stuffing is going on when you have no proof. Perhaps we should steer clear of making baseless claims about each other, and instead debate the real issue which is wither or not this is a valid article for Wikipedia, which i think it is. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We have plenty of evidence. All of the new "Users" who have shown up all of a sudden to vote on this page as their first, one of their first, or their only edits is evidence enough. RickK 21:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, local neologism - not yet notable enough, possible vanity. Sockpuppets/first time edit voters only add weight to the delete vote. Megan1967 03:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism; ballot-stuffing appears to suggest that this is also a vanity article. -- Karada 01:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suspect votes[edit]

  • "keep it, i use it everyday, it is a cultural thing. everythign starts small, let this grow. itll stop growing on its own if its not meant to be. dont vote against this"
  • Strong keep This article shows the freedom of speech in the US, and some kids just want to exercise their first ammendment rights. It shows a longing for difference, and some creativity. --Bobtheazn 02:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)User:bobtheazn
    • Strong disregard this vote by policy "...or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.". Mikkalai 03:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Considering the wealth of information on Wikipedia dealing with pop culture, there is no reason that another article regarding a new colloquialism should be deleted.
  • Keep. This article does not represent absolutely no truth about anything. And it is contrary to the inverse of what wikipedia is not trying to accomplish. Thus it shouldn't not be undeleted. --198.190.223.15
  • Keep Article shows origins of speech patterns in a local environment, a growing interest in some fields.
  • Keep Great article. Definitely keep it, I think it's really valuable. I can now appropriately use the word in Florida schools, if ever necessary. --32147 01:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Three current edits by this user; one to this page, one to the article, and one to User page. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I'm a seventeen year old highschool girl in Florida and this term is thrown around all of the time, and quite frankly, I would be severely disappointed if a site so proud in its depth of information were to discredit a new word such as 'gotem'. portia
    • User's only edit. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • And on the flipside, Keep, just to spite the sockpuppets who want to delete the article simply because they are unfamiliar with the term or see it as insignificant from their point-of-view. --32147 03:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)-[[User:32147|32147]
    • I would like to ask that this vote not be counted because the only motivation is out of spite for “sockpuppets” and not for the content of the entry. I again ask that we try and steer away from baseless and childish attacks and focus on the real issue at hand bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I second bakuzjw's motion not to count 32147's vote. Clearly made in bad faith. -R. fiend 03:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Um, a small mistake has been made R.fiend. My comment about not counting the vote was in fact directed to your vote and not 32147"s vote. Sorry for the misunderstanding. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • 32147's only edits are to the article, the school it supposedly comes from, and this page. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • And note that he voted keep twice. If it's gonna count it'll have to be just once. Mgm|(talk) 09:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP You are my best friend. and you are my hero. and i love you :) oh yea whoever deletes this i will be very mad at you. The word 'gotem' is a very smart word.prettypinkpony
    • Please just vote, don't feed the trollerkinder. See you in 5 days. Mikkalai 03:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My thoughts excalty, i couldnt agree more. 24.250.217.87 03:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Can we all be friends please? Oh and could someone wikify the word "sockpuppets" and then make an article on it because I'm confused. Is this a puppet that is made out of a sock? If so, what does it have to do with Gotem(speech)? I am disturbed by the number of "veteran" users here who are referring to unrelated things such as sockpuppets to justify the deletion of this article. --32147 03:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Sock puppet --Goobergunch|? 03:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't call new users who aren't sockpuppets "sockpuppets". It's elitist and a really crappy welcome to Wikipedia. If you really think they are the same person as another account (which is what "sockpuppet" means), show some evidence. RSpeer 07:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree. I don't think that most of the votes on this are sockpuppets, but that they know each other in real life. However, 32147 wanted to know what a sockpuppet was and I was happy to oblige. --Goobergunch|? 20:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Comment If I were the acting sysop on this page, I would probably count these as about three "keep" votes. Admittedly there's no way to be sure and a clever person could simulate different personalities and writing styles. I see enough differences in style between different voters to there's more than one voter. I see enough similarities in style to think there are fewer than nine. taking the geometrical mean of one and nine, I get three... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Only sockpuppets take geometric means.
  • Comment checking this page i can see that some people suspect that "sock puppets" have been used. I give you my word, that to my knowledge, no sock puppets have been used. Now granted some of the "keep" votes are by new users, which apparently aren’t going to count (however i think they should). So a question for an admin, how is it determined what votes are used and what votes are thrown out. Does a person need to have a certain number of edits, be a member for a certain amount of time, ect.. I am in no way trying to cause trouble, I am just curios as to what the protocol is. (And besides even if the votes that have been thrown out were counted the article would still be deleted, sadly I might add). One last thing would it be a problem for me to have the gotem article on my homepage? bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment (I already said this on bakuzjw's Talk page but I just want to emphasize it). No, there would be no problem at all for you to put this article on your User page. It would be a good idea. This material falls well within the very, very loose bounds we set for appropriate use of user pages. And by the way Google does index user pages. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • I'm not suggesting that you yourself are a sockpuppet but nearly all of the those anonymous keeps came in within a few minutes of the page being VFD'd which is a strong indication that a little clique had been 'instant messaged' to fluff up the vote. Why else did a bunch of anonymous voters show up so quickly? It never happens unless some form of sockpuppetry is involved. I don't think they were sockpuppets in the strict sense of the word, but there was obviously a group of people trying to make their little catch-phrase into something it isn't. The delete votes, most of which came from regular contributors, straggled in as they normally do over the next hours and days. --207.253.111.119 15:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(This comment isn't just directed at 207.253.111.119 -- though it's fascinating that the strongest elitism is coming from an anonymous IP -- but at everyone in this discussion who is attacking the new users who tried to contribute to Wikipedia.)
They aren't sockpuppets in any sense of the word. It may be annoying when a new user recruits other new users to back them up on VfD, but there's no rule against it, and there shouldn't be, because all users are equal.
Editors who have made hundreds of edits are usually dismayed to find that some high school student recruited over IM can cast a vote that counts as much as theirs. They tend to react by intimidating the users, either calling them names or telling them that their votes don't count (which is untrue). You've done this too, now.
So is it that upsetting that someone might vote against you? Someone who (gasp) isn't familiar with how Wikipedia works? You should sit back and relax, knowing that other experienced editors will come along and cast their own votes, and the right thing will happen to the article.
Sure, this article doesn't have much worth, but the users supporting it might once they get more Wikipedia experience. Wouldn't it be great if more high schoolers discovered Wikipedia and found out what a wonderful thing it is? Instead, though, they tend to discover Wikipedia and immediately have to withstand a barrage of personal attacks on VfD. Get off your high horse and go edit some articles.
RSpeer 20:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that "anonymous" comment was mine -- I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I made it. I must admit I am baffled by the suggestion of 'elitism'. It is a well-established policy to distinguish between votes made by contributors and votes by people who are making their first appearance to try and sway a vote in favor of some group. --LeeHunter 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I could not agree more with Rspeer, the whole point of wikipedia is to make loads of knowledge available to the masses for free. And the only way that a lot of knowledge can be compiled is if a lot of people compile it. When veteran users come out and attack an article so furiously is not saying much about the wikipedia community. I enjoy Wikipedia, I like creating new articles and editing old ones, and I like to just sit and read wikipedia. But the problem is wikipedia will die out if veteran users attack new users in the way that happened many times on this vfd page (lets face it veteran users, which i am not one of, as you age, get married, get a job, have kids, wikipedia will fall to the bottom of your todo list). I guess what I am trying to say is that just be friendly to the new users, help them with various wikipedia protocol (which i am still learning and i have been part of wikipedia for a good 2-3 months now). And instead of declaring their vote invalid (because they only have one edit, or are new to wikipedia) and mocking their attempt at trying to save a wikipedia article they like, tell them why it isn’t a valid wikipedia article (which wasn’t done until days after the initial votes were posted), and i would think that the process would go smother. I know this wikipedia article will be taken down, but that is no longer the point, the point is (and some users ego's still wont let them see this) that I think wikipedia needs to take a look at who they treat new users, becuase remember in the future it will be us (i am only 17, and most of my friends-which made up a large majority of the keep votes- are the same age)who will be keeping wikipedia alive, so come on treat as with a little respect.bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Read the comments again! There are comments on the article itself - most of which are utterly bland and neutral, saying that it doesn't belong. And then there are comments about the voting, some of which merely express irritation that a bunch of people came out of nowhere for the sole purpose of saving this one little catch phrase which wouldn't belong in WP anyway. That's not elitism. It's not a ferocious attack. Anyone is welcome as a contributor but if a contributor doesn't understand what WP is all about, someone else will point that out to them. Hopefully this will be done diplomatically, but sometimes not. I actually think people have been remarkably restrained and good-humored about this and a number of people have taken pains to explain how things work. --LeeHunter 02:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentReading through some of the delete votes i was amazed at the amount of elitism that was contained in there reasons for deletion. While maybe I am just reading the votes wrong, I still find it somewhat shocking that this is how some of the veteran users treat new users. It seems to me that there is a wikiclick and if you are not part of the "click" then your going to be in trouble. I just think that people should maybe tone down their responses and try and welcome new members instead of scaring them off by bashing them. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Lots of votes here are misunderstood. Veteran users aren't all a bunch of elitists. Most of them are just trying to be effective and quick about the deletion process. People who feel strongly about the subject may feel hurt about its deletion, but it's not a personal attack. They're trying to keep the wiki clean and it can be really frustrating to see such stuff coming by. I recommend all new users to read the policy on what wikipedia isn't. Having it on your userpage wouldn't be a problem in my opinion. Mgm|(talk) 09:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah. For instance, when I see an article posted to VfD on Special:Recentchanges, I'll usually check the article, do a Google check, and then post a fairly quick keep/delete comment. I posted the notes about number of user edits because it's common practice on VfD votes to do so. However, I think we (including myself) often forget to take into account that new users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. I'll note to be a bit less brusque in the future. --Goobergunch|? 20:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The word that you are hunting for is "clique", the phraseology is a shorthand that you should familiarize yourself with in order to understand these discussions, and the vote tallying process is explained in the deletion process guidelines for administrators. Uncle G 16:36, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like they gotem. PhoenixPinion 23:56, 28 Jan 2005
  • What you guys don't seem to realize is, your usage of "gotem" is only used locally by yourselves, in your school or your town. If it ever makes it to widespread nationwide usage, then maybe it would be encyclopedic enough to have an article on it. But right now, it's just a local fad that you guys are practising. So it doesn't belong here. And you shouldn't try to use Wikipedia as a platform to try to promote it... that's not what Wikipedia is for. -- Curps 09:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if it were a widely-used expression, unless there was some kind of sociohistorical notablity about the word, at best it would belong in Wiktionary. RickK 21:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with RickK. --Idont Havaname 01:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing to see here. Move along. Edeans 08:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism (if you could count a different spelling as a neologism) JimmyShelter 12:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a neologism limited to a particular geographical area, age group, and period of time. It's just simply not encyclopedic. It seems to have been proposed in good faith, but it also seems to have been proposed (and defended) in non-knowledge of what Wikipedia is not -- which is one of the reasons administrators do have discretion when they count votes from anons or users whose edit count is below "voting age", since such contributors may be well-intended but may simply not understand what Wikipedia's aims are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This word is unique enough to warrant its own article. Do not the words "night" and "knight" have differing denotations while being close in spelling? While it is true that the origin of "gotem" is confined to a specific region, its use has already spread amongst North Central Floridian students, and is on the verge of being taken to regions across the nation, such as the Palo Alto/Stanford area in California. While the word's importance may not be immediately obvious, neither was the importance of the word crunk, which started as an obscure slang but came to have a major effect on nearly all segments of American culture and society. It would be a travesty to have this article deleted and lose forever knowledge of its specific origin due to a handful of doubting Wikipedia users. It is highly likely that the use of this word will increase exponentially within the next two decades, if not sooner. This is due in part to the far reaching influence of North Central Floridian students (see University of Florida) and many others associated with the region. What users such as Curps do not realize is that this is a rare opportunity to capture the birth of a phrase that will have a far greater impact on the English language than is currently realized. CharlieO 02:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote is user's first edit. --fvw* 02:39, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
    • Above post is an astonishing observation. Perhaps you should check IPs before getting excited. 128.227.73.39 02:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Immediately above post is mine (was not logged in). CharlieO 03:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I don’t think it matters fvw, if that is the users first post or 1000 post. What matters is the point that he made, which I think is rather valid. So I think that this vote should in fact be counted because the point is valid and one that should be taken into consideration.bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I don’t think it matters — You should, because it does. Please famliarize yourself with what is written at the top of WP:VFD. the point is valid — No, it isn't. If "knowledge" is "lost" by an article being deleted from Wikipedia, then said knowledge was, by definition, original research, which is not permitted in the first place. Moreover, it's pretty damning evidence of the non-notability of the word if the only place that it is known about is a Wikipedia article submitted by a handful of schoolchildren. Uncle G 17:36, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
          • I guess we are just going to disagree on this issue then Uncle G, I can't help it if you have a closed mind and don’t like it when "a handful of schoolchildren" stand up for something they like. If you delete this page or not really makes no difference to me because it will live on forever on my user homepage, and perhaps in a couple of months i will repost it and see how the votes fall that time. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, you'd better make sure you have a lot more evidence to present of it being notable at that time, because if you recreate an article that was deleted by a VfD consensus, it qualifies for a speedy delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • Yes that is what i meant, i wouldn’t just repost an article for kicks, and besides, right now i am very well versed in all of the rules regarding wikipeida VfD because i have read over them at least twice (because various people have referred to them in there comments). bakuzjw (aka 578) 21:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What users such as CharlieO do not seem to realize is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has no interest in "capturing the birth" of anything. At least not in form of an encyclopedia article in the main namespace. That is simply not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. There are other vehicles for recording such things. For example:
  • Put it on a web page in any reasonable location and let archive.org capture it. Many ISPs give you a personal web page. Use it. Unless you deliberately exclude it from indexing, archive.org will probably pick it up within about a year. They've picked up my utterly non-notable personal web page twenty times since 1999.
  • Or post something about it any Usenet newsgroup, via Google Groups--I suggest alt.usage.english--and let Google archive your post.
  • Submit it to jnanabase, which is a general knowledge base
  • Or, for that matter, CharlieO, you can put it on your Wikipedia user page, which you have not yet created. Wikipedia user pages are indexed by Google, by the way.
Everybody and their brother wants to submit Wikipedia articles about their band, perpetual motion machine, neologism, or philosophical theory, and the argument is always "This may not be notable now, but it will be real soon." Fine. Then we don't need an article about it now. When it becomes notable, submit the article, together with verifiable references to the slang directionary that includes it or the New York Times article that mentions it and we'll be pleased to accept it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to make a factual dispute in the claims by CharlieO. I assure you the term is not being used in the Palo Alto/Stanford area. GoCardinal 21:33, 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 No clear consensus. 3 Transwiki / 2 Delete / 1 Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FCC MB Docket 04-232[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mirror. And frankly, I'm not sure how notable this is in and of itself. Just taking up space. --Woohookitty 01:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. or wikisource Mikkalai 08:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 02:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I uploaded it to Wikisource. It can probably be deleted from here then. --Woohookitty 02:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki - Atleast its the start of something deeper and more current.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mgm|(talk) 21:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Irish pish[edit]

Mabye an Irish person can verify this, but as it stands I cannot verify this (no google hits for the phrase irish pish), and it doesn't seem notable enough to be in the wikipedia --nixie 01:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 08:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 5 years in ireland. Never heard that. Top up with a ' "Irish pish" ' google -> 29 hits. Makes a delete. (Almost thinking article is a test, good csd.)Gtabary 13:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no difference between Irish pish and generic pish. And this article is tosh. Delete. Uncle G 16:07, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was unanimous delete. Mgm|(talk) 21:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fip[edit]

Neologism. --Zarquon 01:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • del <- (also neologism w/o wikiarticle, btw :-). Mikkalai 01:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless widespread use can be shown. --Goobergunch|? 01:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Rje 03:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 10:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Del even if it was being used as a real word, it belongs in a dictonary
  • 'Delete. Probable vanity, certainly unnoteworthy junk. -- Infrogmation 19:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert C. Tucker[edit]

Appears to be nonsense --nixie 01:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity or hoax. Megan1967 03:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This appears to be a mistake. Robert C. Tucker is a historian, professor emeritus at Princeton University [1]. This seems to be about a different Robert Tucker, perhaps this one. I suppose someone followed the link at list of historians and created an article about the wrong person. JoaoRicardo 05:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mgm|(talk) 21:24, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jacobs[edit]

Resume. Vanity. Not notable. --Woohookitty 01:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment An earlier article under this title was deleted back in November. The text of the earlier article was much shorter and was:
Michael’s passions are both photography and architecture. He has been traveling for many years, mostly in Europe, the Middle East and South America. Attracted by architecture and abstract composition, he is always in search of new inspiration for artistic and landscape photography.
I can't tell whether this is the same person—in which case it would be a valid speedy delete as re-creation of a VfD-ed article—or not. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising for upcoming 2005 film. Not notable, probably autobiography, vanity. After the film is made and is a success, we could consider an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Worse, copyvio from his promotional site, unless it's authorized, in which case it's autobiography. Samaritan 05:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 05:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mgm|(talk) 21:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Quantal[edit]

Part neolgism, part adversitment/book review --nixie 02:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research, book advertisement. Quantal seems to be an existing word, an adjective relating to the noun quantum. It is used in this sense in Bernard Katz. quantal + "john tyler" gets 29 Google hits. No reference to this in Wikipedia, and the only John Tyler here is the American president. JoaoRicardo 05:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, ad, possible vanity, on a sesame seed bun. --Deathphoenix 02:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect—do not merge—to quantum. In general use, it means "having to do with quanta". The current article just seems to be about one guy's portmanteau of two popular scientific words that have little or nothing to do with what he's talking about. Do not count this as a vote towards keeping without a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 22:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE --ZayZayEM 14:52, 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 Keep 4 / Delete 2 / Merge 3: No clear consensus, kept. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zira[edit]

The movie itself does not have a page, so why should a page about a minor character from it? Taking up space. --Woohookitty 02:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral - The movie does have a page, the internal link was wrong. There are also pages on other characters from the Lion King movies--nixie 02:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I linked the Lion King II page back to Zira. Still needs to be wikified. --Woohookitty 02:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, minor fictious character, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article can be fixed, minor character or not, still contains useful information.Cerceole|(talk) 03:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This character isn't notable on its own, the movie page is good enough for it. And this article is not only unencyclopedic, it's also annoying as a big spoiler (it tells every detail of the movie). I don't think this could grow to become a nice article. And the movie article already contains a nice, non-annoying plot summary. JoaoRicardo 05:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anything that needs tp be said can be said in the movie's article. Unnecessary and poorly written breakout. -R. fiend 05:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge/redir to movie article, which could use some expansion. Niteowlneils 17:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, strong cleanup. Contains useful information about a character in a notable enough film (though I never watched it). Strong cleanup because it's hard to read, weak keep because it's about a minor character. --Deathphoenix 02:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the page of the film. Fictional characters shouldn't have their own pages unless they have gained considerable independent cultural significance. Martg76 17:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the page of the film. The character by herself is a minor character and therefore isn't notable. --Idont Havaname 01:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the film page, this is a lot of pointless info for a minor character. -- Krinberry 17:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mgm|(talk) 21:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ray Visitation[edit]

'A little known althlete', so little known that his name receives no hits on google --nixie 02:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Little known = not notable = not suitable topic for biography under Wikipedia policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. And no context. --Woohookitty 02:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Rje 03:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable. JoaoRicardo 05:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 11:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, no relevant Google hits. --Idont Havaname 01:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Also doesn't appear to be a real person. There was a kickboxer in the 1980s named Robert Visitacion, but he doesn't get many hits either. --Idont Havaname 01:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some sort of evidence or source is provided. Gamaliel 01:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE --ZayZayEM 14:52, 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 redirect. Mgm|(talk) 21:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

13818-2[edit]

This information is included in MPEG-2, a separate page is not necessary Djbrianuk 03:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Branded and Exiled[edit]

This entry is apparantly listing the tracks on an album, but it does not say by whom. Nothing here to explain why the topic is notable. Google on "Branded and Exiled" pulls back about 700 hits. Non-encyclopedic. Johntex 03:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • By Running Wild, it's since been added. And their albums Gates to Purgatory, Under Jolly Roger, Port Royal , Death or Glory and Black Hand Inn all presently have track list stubs, and look at those redlinks. 532 Usenet hits for +"branded and exiled" +"running wild" – and 631 web hits, a very rare ratio; perhaps because few if any of these are selling it. But there certainly seems to be enough to say about it uniquely. Keep. Samaritan 05:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that context has been added. —Korath (Talk) 06:12, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now in light of recent edits. GRider\talk 18:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, Running Wild were never a major league rock band. Sorry but this just falls under for notability for me. Megan1967 00:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Surprise, surprise. GRider\talk 00:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It is true :). Running Wild were never a major league band. Megan1967 02:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 correctly spelled article. Move/redirect has been done. Joyous 00:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Limbach Flumotoren[edit]

A small aircraft engine producer in Germany. Title is mispelled; should be Limbach Flugmotoren. It gets 170 Google hits. I've tried some random entries from list of aircraft engine manufacturers and all get much more than this. JoaoRicardo 04:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to Limbach Flugmotoren, then delete mispelled entry. Being an aircraft engine manufacturer for 30 years is alone enough reason for notability, and these guys seem totally serious. -- Egil 07:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Limbach Flugmotoren then add redirect. Megan1967 00:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was that the page has been userfied. Mgm|(talk) 21:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Liigagria[edit]

Hoax. I'm pretty sure that there were no Portuguese explorers named "Sillyhat", and it gets worse from there. —Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Liigagria" gets zero google hits, and "Lii Gagria" returns one hit, Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion. Delete. KingTT 05:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be an immensely charming childhood fantasy. Too bad it's probably an adolescent hoax. :\ Delete. (But, sigh. "Up into the cherry tree / Who should climb but little me? I held the trunk with both my hands / And looked abroad in foreign lands...") Samaritan 05:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I already speedied this once before as a patent nonsense hoax and added it to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Strike Back. Read it there if you wish. If "Fernando Sillyhat" isn't enough to convince you it's a hoax, then the photoshopped map of Indonesia should. -- Curps 05:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 00:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved to User:Tajunn/Liigagria, and redirect deleted. -- Curps 05:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 3, Keep/Cleanup 2, Translation/Transwiki 1, Userify 1: No clear consensus. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

João Vieira[edit]

This looks like a vanity page/advertising to me. A Google search turns up his personal consulting website, followed by the Wikipedia article. —Pearcej 05:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Offer for translation/transwiki if the Portuguese-language Wikipedia wants it. Samaritan 05:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. PearceJ, did you put the vfd tag on the article? Because it's not there now, and I can't find it in history. JoaoRicardo 07:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An author with three published books, we are told. Assuming that the books are real (ISBN references, please), Keep and send to Cleanup to bring it into line with other articles about published authors. Uncle G 15:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • If no source for the information on this page other than User:Jvieira xemself can be found, then Userfy. Uncle G 15:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • May I ask what "userfy" means? I haven't seen that term before. -Willmcw 23:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, until verification is established this does indeed look like a vanity/personal advertisement page. Megan1967 00:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Googling on the book titles turned up several hits, including online bookstores showing the book covers. I've added the ISBN references to the article. Keep, but certainly Cleanup. Alarm 16:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Three programming instruction books do not notable make, delete. --fvw* 16:58, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basically agree with fvw. -R. fiend 06:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this page as it currently stands is voted down, it should be made a redirect to João Bernardo Vieira, president of Guinea-Bissau.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nukage[edit]

Duplicates content at radioactive waste, radioactive contamination, radiation poisoning etc. Seems this was introduced to make a context for the Doom and Duke Nukem references at the bottom. No content to merge to other articles, since this is just a small part of these games. JoaoRicardo 06:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No need to have less well written duplicate of information at a less appropriate title. -- Infrogmation 07:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Duke Nukem, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 00:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Defaulting to "keep." Joyous 00:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Funday pawpet show[edit]

This doesn't appear to be notable, and I doubt it will become encyclpaedic. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 06:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Inter 09:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I've never heard of it, but it gets more than reasonable results on Google and Google Groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Notes after a few minutes of research, I've found that it's been around for more than 5 years, and has done lots of paid live performances, which puts it well beyond most VfD candidates (teen garage bands, etc) as far as notability goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if Starblind's research is correct, they're worthy to be included: keep and cleanup. Mgm|(talk) 09:26, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Starblind seems to be right. Alarm 17:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Marcus22 20:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Improve it. non-encyclopaedic --Neigel von Teighen 20:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google does indicate that this is notable, surprisingly enough. (!) GRider\talk 19:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The article defaults to "keep." Joyous 00:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Xenu's Link Sleuth[edit]

This seems like one guy promoting his obscure freeware program. RSpeer 06:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep. A useful program. Mikkalai 08:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An interesting article and useful stub. GRider\talk 18:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the people voting Keep have indicated if they've ever heard of this product before or if it is notable. The article does not establish notability. RickK 23:31, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is useful, e.g., for wikipedia maintenance of broken links. If you suggest me another tool that does the same, I may reconsider the vote. Notability is but one of criteria. Anyway, since youare so picky, I did some research. It exists since 1997, and quite a few people are reportedly used it. Broken links are real plague of HTML; I'd say cancer, since there is no uneversal cure yet. So I conclude: the tool is notable. And lastly, google gives 28,700 hits. So I guess none of the people voting to delete researched its notability from other sources. Bad stub does not establish non-notability. Mikkalai 23:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • If you had said in your vote that you knew the program and had either used it or knew personally that it was notable, then I wouldn't have needed to post what I did. But since you declined to do so, all I can assume is that you are making a generic "notable" vote because that's the way radical inclusionists tend to vote. RickK 00:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • And how then do radical deletionists tend to vote? Please curb your personal attacks, they're unnecessary and generate more heat than light. GRider\talk 00:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Relax, GR. I am not insulted. And by the way, IMO I am a deletionist, if someone could take the pain to review my votes. :-) Mikkalai 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I was all set to vote delete, but Google is giving 15,000 hits for the phrase "Xenu's Link Sleuth", which I can't see applying to much else other than this piece of software, so, Keep. —Stormie 01:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 05:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - not a vanity (I created it as a separate item from Xenu) and I've used it myself since 1997. (It's very nice for what it does.) - David Gerard 22:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I disagree with the people who say this is notable - I don't think it is. →Raul654 19:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, does it make sense to create a Broken link article? Mikkalai 21:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • This is not at all an "obscure" program, unless "obscure" covers programs that don't cost money and come in reassuringly oversized shrinkwrapped boxes. It's a superb program that does its job, runs extremely fast, and produces a sitemap as an incidental benefit. (The only pity is that Tilman will neither bring out a version for other OSes nor release the source code.) Keep. -- Hoary 08:22, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 06:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The anonymous votes were quite highly discounted. Joyous 00:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Astroseries[edit]

Another guy and his free game. Why do I keep running into this kind of crap on random page? RSpeer 06:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Infrogmation 07:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Inter 09:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 11:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete -- 64.9.205.95 22:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)Dave
  • Don't Delete 66.0.156.3 22:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)Norman Hey don't delete. Maybe this article could be relocated under Stratagus? After all this game seems to be related to that topic (seems a subproject of Stratagus)
  • Delete. --fvw* 23:00, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable/verifiable to Stratagus and add redirect. Megan1967 00:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Don't merge into Stratagus, since that game engine is much more notable than this game. JoaoRicardo 00:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 200.44.94.219 20:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Kostas] The person who made this videogame sabotaged my IRC chat server 2 years ago. You definitively have to delete his crap article. Astroseries stinks.
  • Delete 200.85.66.110 23:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Delete but also invite the original poster to post his article again, but making sure he does it in a high quality way, with all the required references to other related materiel, to ensure that his contribution will at least be of some value.
  • Don't Delete 200.79.48.94 13:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Article seems ok to be here in Wikipedia.
  • Don't Delete 64.9.205.95 21:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Is it me or the quality of this article improved since I last came?
    • Yes it has, the issue is its notability, not the article content. And anyway, that doesn't entitle you to two votes. It doesn't even entitle you to one actually, anonymous editors cannot vote. --fvw* 22:03, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • 200.35.213.207 03:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Allright. I am the original poster of the article. Delete it. Actually I am the one who asks for it to be deleted. If what matters here is notability, then by all means delete the article. The videogame will be notable enough in about a year or so. The article can be put back on then. -A. F. Perez

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Committee to Protect Bloggers[edit]

Blogger vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I put up this page because I think this group is important. I am in no way involved with the group, I just found the link a few weeks ago in my RSS feed. I think people need to know about people for whom content contribution online is a physically dangerous practice. --Mdog 07:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of your favorite blogs. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A bit new for comfort, but keep especially if no appropriate merger (some general article on blogosphere-real life interaction controversies?) can be found. This group is not itself a blog. Samaritan 07:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that failure to include this page and a link to it from Weblog leaves an inacurate story being told regarding the political climate around blogging. We read that the DNC and RNC accredited bloggers, but not about how bloggers in other places are facing state repression for blogging? That doesn't seem benificial to wikipedia's coverage of blogs. --Mdog 07:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too new (days old!) to be notable. It certainly sounds important, but importance is not key... notability is. At any rate, I'd support an external link to this effort from the Weblog article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 07:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Too new. I can recognize the importance of such a group, but it has yet to do anything at all, hence it isnt notable. Inter 09:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like it could be a worthy cause, but that does not make the committee encyclopedic. If the only reason to keep a non-encyclopedic article in an encyclopedia is its importance, then the only end served would be promotion. I applaud the intent of the committee, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of causes -- it is an encyclopedia. SWAdair | Talk 10:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now. Notable topic, yes. Notable organization? Maybe. Give it a chance. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote new websites or to "give them a chance." RickK 23:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, if and when this group becomes more notable then perhaps I'll change my vote. Megan1967 00:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems to be generating lots of hype, but maybe it's safer to wait until they have done something. JoaoRicardo 00:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough, and it has an Alexa rank of 124! Alexa also gives traffic details for at least August 2004.
  • Keep. Blogger is currently featuring the site as a 'Blog of Note', and that's the only reason I'm voting for its preservation. O
  • Delete. Not notable, nor expandable (at least yet - no page until it is). --bainer 01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems unnotable as of now. Maybe someday. -R. fiend 06:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too new an organization to evaluate notability without evidence of major impact. And since Wikipedia does not speculate on possible future notability, we should not have an article on it until we can say for certain. — Gwalla | Talk 22:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mgm|(talk) 21:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Big V.I.C.[edit]

Non-notable slang. Nothing links here and the author's (4.241.3.1) contributions [3] are mostly work with slang. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 08:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Doesn't seem very notable. Inter 09:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible band vanity. Megan1967 00:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Infrogmation 19:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Wittenberg Factor[edit]

Apparently an article about a segment on a public access cable show. Probable vanity, as it has been contributed entirely by the same anon user (two IPs, but they are near each other numerically, so I presume them to be the same person). Delete. Suggest removing references inserted into other articles by the same anon user if deleted. --Slowking Man 08:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Google doesn't seem to yield much information at all about this. Inter 09:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Segment of a show, not the show itself. If it showed more evidence of notability, then it might just about be worthy of merging with an article on the show it is a segment within, but I can't find that evidence. Average Earthman 17:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I've actually read about this in the paper, it's certainly not that notable. – Beginning 19:05, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Average Earthman. JoaoRicardo 00:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

List of The Wittenberg Factor episodes[edit]

Currently empty list related to The Wittenberg Factor, listed above. Created by same anon. --Slowking Man 08:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Same reason as above. Inter 09:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. List of 'episodes' of a three minute segment on a programme on a public access channel. Googling for "Big Sky Live" MCAT gives one hit. So the show that has the segment that contains these episodes does not appear to be notable. Although the station might deserve an article, it's programmes don't, segments in the programmes definitely don't, and list of episodes of segments in the programme absolutely don't. Average Earthman 17:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough (see previous vote comments above). Megan1967 00:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Average Earthman. JoaoRicardo 00:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Phonetic pattern[edit]

This was tagged as speedy, but is not a CSD candidate. Delete as original research or essay. jni 09:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. One of four, um, pieces of writing posted by this IP in the space of an hour, and the first contributions from this IP. They are all on aspects of linguistics and I'm afraid I can't find any useful content in any of it. Two were edits to existing articles and have been reverted, the other two were new articles and this is one of them. I'll write a greeting to the author when I feel stronger. Andrewa 12:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research at best, nonsense at worst. JoaoRicardo 00:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. --Deathphoenix 04:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete as patent nonsense. It bears no relationship to linguistic theory. --Angr 09:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this nonsense. Josh Cherry 01:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research of the "ignorant of existing theory" variety. — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Linguistic law[edit]

This was tagged as speedy, but has information density over my threshold for patent nonsense. Original research? jni 09:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • You can describe everything about this original research with the two phonetic symbols, Del and ete. --Zarquon 10:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the other article by the author of phonetic pattern, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phonetic pattern. Andrewa 12:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay, original research. However... I think this is sensible musing and speculation by someone who is asking reasonable questions, but doesn't seem to be aware of existing answers. See the article on Chunking for a description of how some subjects were able to memorize extremely long strings of binary digits by recoding them into integers. For the use of musical pitch as an information carrier; even English uses pitch already to add information to speech. In effect the question mark is encoded in speech as a rise in pitch at the end of a sentence while the period is encoded as a fall in pitch. My understanding is that in Chinese differences in pitch can completely change the meanings of words. Silbo, used on La Gomera in the Canary Islands, is an encoding of Spanish vocabulary and syntax into pure whistling. I imagine Silbo has seen much wider use than Solresol, a constructed language which either be spoken using the names of the notes of the musical scale or expressed purely in terms of pitch. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either original research or a newbie mistake, as expressed by Dpbsmith above. JoaoRicardo 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As a linguist, I find the page patent nonsense. The sentence "We know that English has 440 different phonetic patterns, supposing there are only 440 different things waiting to be expressed" is utterly absurd, whatever the definiton of "phonetic pattern" is supposed to be (and no definition is given). There is such a thing as a sound law in linguistics, but this isn't it. --Angr 09:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mgm|(talk) 21:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Uchhaishravas[edit]

Google yields 44 hits on this. Seems not notable. Inter 09:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. Hindu mythology. Google is not a good tool to judge whether it is notable or not. Transcription problems also have to be taken into account. / up+land 10:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep things from real mythologies, even if they get 0 hits. Uchaishravas might be a better spelling. Kappa 10:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Uppland. GRider\talk 18:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, minor character in Hindu mythology. Probably merge or mention in another Hindu article but I cant see this expanding into a full blown article without regurgitating the whole myth from elsewhere. Megan1967 00:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All mythological figures are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 03:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rishiris effect[edit]

Original research. Rishiris doctrine has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rishiris doctrine). --Zarquon 10:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Tinfoil hat stuff, unlike the Rishiris doctrine which made a lot of sense but was not encyclopedic. Andrewa 11:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. JoaoRicardo 00:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 17:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep (and Cleanup) - 8 / Delete 5 / Merge and redirect 3: Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Martlet[edit]

"The Independent Student Newspaper of the University of Victoria". Marked as a speedy, but it doesn't seem like one. Might be best merged somewhere but no vote from me yet. My vote is keep now it's been cleaned up. Kappa 10:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to University of Victoria, merging a little of the intro. Most of this article is a copyvio from www.martlet.ca/archives/031002/news6.html, but the material doesn't belong in this article anyway. Some of the information (but not the text) could go to various other articles. My first reaction to this listing was that it was unnecessary, as the proposer didn't propose deletion, but I see the problems now and yes, VfD is probably the way to go. Andrewa 12:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is an existing category for Category:Canadian student newspapers, which I've added this article to. I strongly object to any attempt to draw a distinction between Canadian student newspapers that are notable enough to have an article and those that aren't, and fail to see how The Martlet is any less notable than American student papers such as The Tartan or the Chicago Maroon, both of which also already have articles. The only acceptable options are keep this, or delete all university newspapers, period; nothing in between is appropriate. I have to say cleanup (I've done some myself just now), but keep. Bearcat 18:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep (change of vote). Good refactor. Agree that Canadian (and Australian... hang in there Lleyton) student newspapers should be treated equally to those of other countries, but I think the above argument misses the point on several issues. Academic (;-> now. Andrewa 20:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if I'm missing the point, then please show me where. Because the way I see it, there are only three possible approaches to the general topic of student newspapers: (a) all are notable enough for Wikipedia, (b) none are notable enough for Wikipedia, (c) some are notable enough for Wikipedia and others aren't. I'm genuinely curious to know where the distinction lays for people who believe (c), because I don't personally see where a defensible distinction can be drawn. Bearcat 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Peace! But for a start, you still seem to think that someone wants to discriminate against Canadians. Nobody is proposing that, see my comments above and those of others below. Before, it seemed you were arguing that because we hadn't deleted a similar article, we shouldn't delete this one. Two problems there: Firstly, nobody had at that stage suggested deleting this one (not even the nominator). Secondly, we do make mistakes. Precedents are relevant, but not proof. No change of vote (ie still a keep as revised from redirect). Andrewa 08:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • In my original comment, my strong objection was to dividing Canadian student newspapers from each other as notable vs. non-notable; the American examples were raised in a different context. Yes, my point is that American and British student newspapers need to be treated equivalently; I raise that not because I think that there's some conspiracy against Canadian topics, but because if I didn't, this would have either survived or failed the VfD process as an isolated example and the others would have stayed right where they were. Frankly, I think student newspapers are a topic (university athletics teams and student unions would be two more) where we need to have a clear policy on their notability (or lack thereof) which applies consistently, because as things stand, some isolated examples get deleted and other isolated examples survive almost solely on the basis of who happens to show up to vote in that particular case, which isn't acceptable. (For example, the list of member papers at Canadian University Press must consistently link either to member papers or to the university articles. It absolutely cannot be half one, half the other. It also happens to be woefully incomplete at the moment, for that matter, since I can't add anything to it until I know whether I can link to papers.) And just for the record, Canadian topics really have sometimes been held to a higher standard of notability on VfD than their American or British equivalents. I ain't making this up. Bearcat 20:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Comment: Lots of issues here, but I don't think this is the place to discuss them. We agree on the course of action. I notice you haven't expressed your opinions about student newspapers at Wikipedia:what's in, what's out#Newspapers and magazines; Please consider doing this, although it's (quite explicitly) not a policy document it does have some following. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I've merged the stubs for The Tartan and the Chicago Maroon with their respective universities. Gamaliel 21:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Very well and good. There are still plenty of student newspapers existing in Category:Student newspapers, and gawd knows how many more lurking outside of any category. Those were just two examples, not the totality of the issue I was raising. Bearcat 05:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course, but those were the only two I knew about at the time. I've started working on redirecting and merging the stubs in that category. Care to give me a hand? Gamaliel 18:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Frankly, no, because I'm not going to pretend I believe that student newspapers are unencyclopedic or undeserving of individual articles. Bearcat 02:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The burden of evidence should be very high to show that a regularly published newspaper is not notable, and most English and major other-language newspapers not sufficiently notable for the English wikipedia. Some would obviously fail, such as advertising and listing "newspapers." This would not. Bearcat introduces the problems with such an isolated deletion. The article now notes how it was "responsible for bringing about the resignation of the university's president," which is highly important. Besides, I've never had anything to do with the University of Victoria, but I'm interested in it, and it's certainly expandible. (What's it independent of? Was it a response to an oldline establishment student newspaper? Have any subsequently notable people written for it? And so on.) Keep. Samaritan 18:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up and keep. Needs to be copyvio-free (if that's still an issue), but it's certainly worthwhile to have. – Beginning 19:43, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough for an article. A newspaper is not notable per se. As for Bearcat's argument, I'm all for deleting every university newspaper from Wikipedia, unless they are actually notable for something else than simply being a newspaper. JoaoRicardo 23:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, not notable enough for me. Megan1967 00:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Student newspapers are interesting, useful, notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 03:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and any other student newspapers from any country. Gamaliel 03:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; student newspapers are on the wrong side of the line. —Korath (Talk) 05:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then start putting the damned things up for deletion. Just saying student newspapers aren't notable when only one paper is actually up for deletion will only result in that one paper being singled out for deletion and the others being left alone. Bearcat 05:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I fully plan to, if this passes as a test case. —Korath (Talk) 07:21, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Merge and redirect to University of Victoria. I go to UVic, I read the thing every week, and I don't think this is encyclopaedic. And for the record, I'd vote to delete other student newspapers of this miserly stature as well. Lord Bob 10:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is that a merge and redirect, or just redirect?
    • And what do you define as "miserly" vs. "non-miserly" student newspapers? Where's the dividing line? Bearcat 19:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a merge and redirect. My bad. And a student newspaper that's churned out a number of Pulitzer-winning journalists or had an impact on major affairs off the campus would probably make the cut, for me. Lord Bob 21:16, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. By default, student newspapers are not notable. Practically every university and college has one. There could be a student newspaper that is notable. The first one in a country or language. A student newspaper where an extraordinary number of a country's top journalists learned their profession. One that has won the Pulitzer Prize, or the equivalent in another country. But the burden of proof is on the person writing the article to establish notability. --BM 16:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to University of Victoria. The argument for outright deletion escapes me. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to University of Victoria. Current content is not sufficient to stand alone as an encyclopedia article. If there is ever a lot more encyclopedia-worthy material, it can be broken out to a separate article then. In the meantime, it is better discussed in context. Comment: To answer Bearcat's question above, I strongly believe the answer is C - keep some and delete others. The decision is a judgment call and often a very difficult one but it should be based on 1) whether the topic is or ever can be encyclopedic and 2) whether readers will understand the current content best if it is discussed separately or in the immediate context of some other article. I disagree with his/her comment that the "member pages at Canadian University Press must consistently link" one way or the other. Piped section links work just fine. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's necessary because Wikipedia has to start taking consistency of organization more seriously than it does. It looks bad to have some things separated out as articles while other equivalent things are strictly subsections of other articles, it looks bad to have an inconsistently-organized list, etc. Consistency isn't taken nearly seriously enough on here; there are far too many ad hoc decisions made in one case and not in another, resulting in poor organization. And also, I've noticed that the unofficial rule for most publications seems to be that any magazine or newspaper with a per issue circulation of at least 5,000 passes the test; why should a student paper be held to a different standard? Bearcat 02:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think this is the place to discuss it, but I disagree with Bearcat's notion of consistency here. I don't see this as any different than (for example) one might have a list of an author's works with only the major works linking to articles of their own. Is there somewhere more appropriate to discuss this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Merging things like this defeats the object of the category system as the merged article won't be placed in the newspaper category. Philip 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Categories exist to serve articles, not vice-versa. —Korath (Talk) 09:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody's suggested otherwise. The point is that the category isn't serving the articles if it can't include 95 per cent of the articles that belong in it; it's of no value to have any articles on student newspapers, even "more notable than most" ones, if they're divorced of their context by the lack of any other student newspaper articles to compare them to. It detracts from the existing articles (and from Wikipedia as a whole) to have any "student newspapers" category at all, if isn't allowed to ever contain more than a fractional subset of that group of topics. (And again, comparing this statement to personal biography articles is intellectually dishonest; "student newspapers" is a finite set of things that are mostly of equal notability to each other, not a potentially infinite can of worms like allowing an article on any person who ever lived would be.) Bearcat 00:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Pachiyappa's College[edit]

An old college, but is it notable enough for inclusion? Longhair 10:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. One more sub-sub-sub... stub which contains no-no-no...thing. I am suprised. Gtabary 13:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Recolouring the redlinks at University of Madras should be done properly, or not at all. Delete. Uncle G 15:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete (no merge as nothing worth merging). This is the sort of article that merely serves to annoy - better not to have an article than one that contains no information that wasn't on the article it came from. Average Earthman 17:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a decent stub, unless someone bothers to clean it up. JoaoRicardo 23:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only is it a school, it's been around for 160+ years. Needs cleanup, not deletion. --Centauri 03:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • But there is nothing there to cleanup. Better to list under requested articles than to have nothing worthwhile there.Average Earthman 15:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless sub-stub. Gamaliel 04:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Centauri, but I think a redlink would encourage people to write an article more than a sub-sub-sub-sub... --Deathphoenix 04:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 09:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, stubby article that is nothing worth merging or keeping. Megan1967 02:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless sub-stub. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject is certainly worthy of inclusion based on its age if nothing else, but I'm guessing this isn't the way. The physical address and year of founding does not an article make. BTW, I share the sentiments expressed by Centauri, Average Earthman and Deathphoenix. - Lucky 6.9 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And add to requested articles.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Smeltish[edit]

"A new dialect formed in september 2004". I think this qualifies as a neologism. Thryduulf 10:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete but gently, first contribution by a new user. Andrewa 11:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, not documented anywhere I can find. – Beginning 19:40, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence this exists. JoaoRicardo 23:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had a private slang when I was in high school too, but I didn't write a Wikipedia article about it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, not notable. Megan1967 00:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Michelle stephens[edit]

Vanity. Inter 12:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete!!!Glaurung 13:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief! Delete. Uncle G 14:12, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • delete'. a text-book vanity article (not a vanity about a text-book though). Thryduulf 15:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- :-)~ ~ ~~ Longhair 18:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Kinda made me smile, though. – Beginning 19:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, my...this is a tad vain, is it not? If I may be permitted to emply a somewhat archaic phrase, my initial response to this little tome was "barf out, gag me with a spoon." Off to listen to some Zappa CD's for a renewed sense of purpose. Meantime, delete this. Quickly. Painfully. - Lucky 6.9 19:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Gaaah...! Delete. Joke at poor 'Chelle's expense, like the one below. These should be speedies. Andrewa 21:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another author with great imagination creating fictional characters --Neigel von Teighen 21:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious vanity. Agree with Andrewa, these should be speedies. I suspect the Fort Myers soccer team have some pretty sore jaws. -R. fiend 22:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 01:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think this is vanity necessarily. It is more likely someone having fun at her expense. I've reduced it to a sub-stub; so if you want to read the original, you need to go back into the history. --BM 01:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 13:38, 1 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 00:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Priyanka[edit]

Vanity --LeeHunter 12:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete!!!Glaurung 13:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, though it did make me smile just like Michelle stephens did.  :) – Beginning 19:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto. More of the same. You think someone who claims a 4.35 GPA would at least take the time to read the directions! Bye, Priyanka. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 19:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michelle stephens above. Should be speedies, we have no way of knowing what malice may be behind these. Andrewa 21:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The malice isn't evident in the article, though, and there's not a large potentional for invasion of privacy (Remember the 18-year-old whose personal information was listed a while back?). See CSD criterion #3. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same as Andrewa, it should be a CSD. Anyway, it's a good start for a fictional story... --Neigel von Teighen 21:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vanity, probably vandalism when taking into account this user's history. I've listed this user at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. JoaoRicardo 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Either something isn't adding up here, or I have mis-read sophomore. How can a 17-year-old be a sophomore? Anyway, yet another article about a schoolgirl who likes to hang out with boys. Gosh. Delete. Uncle G 15:48, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:50, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

802.3an[edit]

This page is basically advertising the commerical site in the external link, which was the entire content of the article when first created (the edit summary was: click link). The first sentence was added by the same user, and probably just scrapes it above the threshold for a speedy deletion. The article adds nothing beyond what is in the Ethernet article, so there is no point in merging it.

Thryduulf 15:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, for the same reason (advertising).
  • Delete. Pointless.. Goldom 15:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have been a speedy delete according to the new policies (article consisting only of an external link). And for the time being, information about this should be in IEEE 802.3 until it is actually released. JoaoRicardo 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Shameless plug Selphie 15:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) **

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP (6 keep/5 delete). DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

S&P CNX Nifty[edit]

KEEP. There is too little info available regarding this key Indian stock market index (National Stock Exchange/ NSE). The index is called Nifty. Please, please, somebody also add the ticker symbol to look up quotations for this index, eg via Yahoo finance (to give an example, the ticker symbol for the BSE Sensex index is ^BSESN).

(Someone else): This article is nothing but gibberish. It is just a long list of companies, with no punctuation whatsoever; it looks like a business ticker.

Red dwarf

  • It is the leading stock index of large-cap stocks the National Stock Exchange of India. [4] Keep/cleanup/expand. Samaritan 15:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless is edited into sense soon, I don't think anyone but the original author has a clue what his point of posting this was.. Goldom 15:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is obviously cut-and-pasted from somewhere, though I doubt a list like this could be considered a copyvio. As it stands, there's no article here. 23skidoo 15:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge into National Stock Exchange of India. Even if you solved the low-level issue of formatting the text better, the article doesn't say anything beyond just a list. I've stuck a stub tag on it, in the hopes that somebody will come along and improve the article before the voting is over (in which case I'll be happy to change my vote), but in the current state, I don't see anything worth keeping. BTW, the same applies to CNX Nifty Junior --RoySmith 16:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Based on recent improvements to the article, I'm now happy to change my vote. Now somebody should fix up NASDAQ-100 to bring it up to the quality of this article :-) --RoySmith 14:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even if it's just a list. Objective lists of prominent companies are encyclopedic. Kappa 16:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • But there needs to be context for such a list and, as it stands presently, there appears to be none. 23skidoo 19:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete S&P CNX Nifty is my favourite S&P CNX. It's way better than the S&P CNX Groovy, the S&P CNX Neato, and the S&P CNX Peachy Keen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've turned it into a readable chart now. It could probably use more background information, but at least it makes sense now. I hope I did the "series" and "ISIN" sections right; it was hard to read in the original layout. -R. fiend 19:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The formatting is certainly better, but it's still not an encyclopedia article. If somebody who knows about this stuff could add a paragraph or two describing the history of the index, what criteria is used to put companies on the list, it's significance, or anything else interesting about it, then I think it would be worth keeping. --RoySmith 19:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest a move to List of companies on the S&P CNX Nifty or something. There is certainly a precedent for lists, and many (most?) are much less useful than this. -R. fiend 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to follow the precedent set by all other articles in Category:Stock market indices. Unless those should all be changed, I think that this is fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:02, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Nice job on the formatting, thank you. Kappa 22:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this seems fine now. Compared to other stock index articles like NASDAQ-100, it has even more information. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That list is not an encyclopedia article, and probably never will be. Please don't put that list on National Stock Exchange of India, it would just move the problem from one article to the other. If someone has something to say about this, they can do so in National Stock Exchange of India without the lenghty list. JoaoRicardo 23:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who's going to update it every time a new company comes onto the exchange?. RickK 23:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC) After reading DDG's comments below, it's clear that I misunderstood this article, and I'm going to vote neutral here. RickK 23:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • RickK, I think that you and several other people here are making a common mistake; you are confusing an index with an exchange. This is not a list of every company that trades on the exchange, but rather a list of the constituents of a very specific index of the 50 highest valued commodoties on the exchange. The list of stocks will never exceed 50, and the list should change no more than once a quarter. This is a highly regulated list, and is quite valuable. You are comparing this list to the NYSE, where the more appropriate comparison is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a lengthy list that will need constant updating. Not very useful or practical in the long term, when a mention in National Stock Exchange of India could do better. Megan1967 00:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • A quick googling reveals their webpage, and looking at their policies shows that their list of constituents changes once every quarter [5]. These updates are regularly scheduled. The list can never grow beyond 50, which is not that lengthy, expecially when compared to other indices. Also, index length should not be a criteria. The Russell 3000 has 3000 symbols, and is invaluable for evaluating the performance of small-cap stocks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Indexes like these don't change terribly often. I don't see anyone taking issue with the "constant need" to update the Dow Jones Industrial Average for example. The NASDAQ-100 is a longer list without much of an article. Shoudl that be deleted? -R. fiend 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. All indexes get updated about once a quarter, and it's big news when it happens, so the fact that the content changes should have nothing to do with whether or not the topic is notable or not. The list is not that lengthy, especially when compared to NASDAQ-100 or Russell 2000, both of which are indisputably encyclopedic. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you look at [6], you'll find twenty-some-odd stock indicies listed, so there certainly seems to be precedent that they are encyclopedic. I think the original complaint about this article was not so much the topic, but the quality of the content, which is no longer an issue after several people have jumped in and fixed this up. It's worth noting that most of the articles include the list of companies, with the notable exception of the Wilshire 5000 , where such a list would be impractical to keep up to date --18:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me now, keep. --fvw* 22:04, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep 2 / Wikisource 3. No consensus -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exsurge Domine[edit]

Something for wikisource, perhaps. Assuming it's legit, I haven't verified it. -R. fiend 16:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's legitimate, and we have articles on other papal bulls (see list at papal bull). The lead is a decent stub, just the actual bull text has to be removed. JoaoRicardo 23:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't the translation copyrighted? There's a credit at the bottom. Whether it is or not, we either must move it to Wikisource or delete the text. I vote Move to Wikisource. RickK 23:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource, perhaps add a redirect too. Megan1967 00:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The stubby intro wasn't there when I nominated this. Might as well keep that (and hopefully expand), but still transwiki or delete the text of the bull. -R. fiend 01:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • delete the text of the bull. I wish I could use that language on a lot of other VfD votes.  :) RickK 01:27, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but summarise the text of the bull rather than keeping the full (and probably copyrighted) translation. A section should be added on the effect of the bull on church teachings, as well. Grutness|hello? 07:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the stub, and Move the text to wikisource, copyvio pending Lectonar 08:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Lesser five[edit]

  1. Dicdef: Just a simple dictionary definition. No possibility of enlargement.
  2. Unverifiable: Not a single of the ~110 Google hits for the phrase "lesser five" referred even vaguely to the Ivy League or any of the schools.
  3. Inflammatory: Seems to be an article designed simply to agitate fans of those schools.

Nohat 17:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable even if it were verified (which appears unlikely). Avoiding boosterism includes not trashing other universities. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a common term, not an actual alliance of any kind, no possibility for expansion. – Beginning 19:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having been subjected to the vanity and petty competition of Ivy Leaguers most of my days, I've never heard such a term. —ExplorerCDT 20:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef of a non notable concept. JoaoRicardo 22:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons mentioned above. Red Dwarf 09:00, 2 Feb, 2005 (NST)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 21:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I decided to redirect it to contrarian.

Contrary[edit]

Dictionary definition Rmhermen 17:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:48, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Where's my meniscus?[edit]

This search term only gets 251 hits in google, most of which are Wikipedia clones or h2g2 clones. The alexa rank of the given link is over 4 million. Non-Notable, and er... original research? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:24, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • When it is played by a lot more than a scant few people (I count ten members from the "about us" page.) who used to belong to a society at the University of Oxford, then it will perhaps be notable. Delete. Uncle G 17:48, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know I shouldn't bite the newbies, but apart from being very obscure and not in any way widely practised, isn't that rather too nerdy to have any chance of spreading? (I have a degree in Astrophysics, so I know nerdy). Average Earthman 18:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think you have to worry about biting any newbies. If you look at the history, this article has been around since December 13, 2003. If anything, this is the counter-argument to Jimbo's "5-minute" spam removal hypothesis. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alexa ranking nearly 5 million in fact; that's worse than mine. Fails the "more notable than me" test. Delete. Raven42 21:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with DropDeadGorgias. JoaoRicardo 22:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough localised drinking game. Megan1967 00:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Janet Borgman[edit]

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

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

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

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 00:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Man in the Movie[edit]

Listed as per Kevin Rector and Wile E. Heresiarch at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phil Stone. This nomination does not necessarily reflect my vote. Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is here to reflect notability, and a film which isn't finished and has no evidence of a distributor is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. It's a sad fact of the domination of the majors that indie films have a hard job getting noticed, but we're not here to fix that. Good luck with the film, but Wikipedia is not a tool to promote it. If it gets a wide distribution or wins a prize at a major independent film festival, then I'll be happy to vote keep for an article. Average Earthman 18:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfinished, non-notable film. Gamaliel 19:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Couldn't find it on IMDb, and even though being on IMDb does not equal noability, not being on is a sure sign of unnotability, if you're a movie or screen actor. -R. fiend 21:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Average Earthman and R. fiend. JoaoRicardo 22:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! Disagree, it seems like a valid article. On Google "The Man in the Movie" gets 9,660 votes! Carr 00:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • However most of those hits having nothing to do with this movie. -R. fiend 01:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come back when it wins an award at Sundance -- or, hell, when it's finished, even. --Calton 01:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - shameless promotion. Kevin Rector 14:43, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Xezbeth 06:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. promotion. -Willmcw 23:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Roy LeRoi[edit]

Listed as per R. fiend and Pitchka at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phil Stone. This nomination does not necessarily reflect my vote. Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. Independent film actor - if the bar for 'average actor' is set anywhere near as high as for 'average professor' (in terms of note, not ability) then he doesn't appear above the threshold yet. Average Earthman 18:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a hoax. He's on the IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 19:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one role at IMDb, as "French Soldier". Extras are not encyclopdic. Niteowlneils 19:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just because he exists, that doesn't mean he's notable. – Beginning 19:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Getting on IMDb isn't all that difficult, and doesn't necessarily equal notability. Hey, I was an extra in The Time Machine, maybe I should have a wikipedia article. This is either a vanity page or close to it. -R. fiend 19:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Appearing in two movies as a stunt is not evidence of notability. JoaoRicardo 22:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But he's also a comic actor! That's not even mentioned accept to say he plays Dunz in Democrazy! Plank 00:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read the last sentence of the {{subst:vfd}} notice. Uncle G 16:12, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
    • "He is said ...", "He is supposed ...", "He is estimated ...". Weasel words won't convince people. Cite your sources. Uncle G 14:39, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Delete - Kevin Rector 14:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Xezbeth 06:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

BMG FRAMED GRAPHICS, INC.[edit]

This is advertising for a non-encyclopedic company. "BMG Framed Graphics" scores 41 google hits. Rje 17:55, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advert Cdc 19:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for a non-notable company. JoaoRicardo 22:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 01:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Martha Lou Croxton Taussig[edit]

Vanity/non-factual. I cannot find any referances to these people anywhere else, also, the place Kaldrahadi does not seem to exist. Remuel 17:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Carolyn waters[edit]

Only coattail notability. One of Pink Floyd's Roger Waters' ex-wives (he apparently has three). Seems to have no notability of her own. Wikipedia is not a geneology site. 1000 hits for "Carolyn waters" -glamour -broe, but 99% of them are still for other people that happen to share the name. The fact it's an orphan also indicates Wikipedia does not need this info. Niteowlneils 18:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - agreed. Cdc 19:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Niteowlneils. She should have an article if either she has any achievement of her own or she was very influential in Pink Floyd's or Roger Water's career (like Yoko Ono for John Lennon/Beatles). JoaoRicardo 21:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ego surfing[edit]

I'm not sure if we need an article on ego surfing, but even if we do, this isn't it. --fvw* 18:42, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV, unencyclopedic. This is by user Agquarx, who has been inserting extreme POV statements in articles like Poland and Teresa Salgueiro, and has created gibberish articles like this one and datastream. Not sure if this is a clueless newbie or some vandal. JoaoRicardo 20:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is rolling over in ready-ready happy-happy quality, and caused me to experience a cyan-green-yellowgreeen feeling. Delete, Wikipedia is not for stream-of-consciousness. --Zarquon 21:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Paul August ☎ 22:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Should have been speedy deleted just because it hurts the eyes.  :) We probably should have an article about ego surfing, but this isn't it. Delete. RickK 23:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic POV. Megan1967 01:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary I've removed all the nonsense and replaced it with a dictdef. --LeeHunter 15:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup, this is a move to wiktionary. I'm not sure why you did it like this though. If you'd just created the ego surfing article on wiktionary and left this to be deleted, the extra effort of moving to wiktionary (is anybody actually doing those anymore?) would have been unnecessary. --fvw* 16:07, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Move to wiktionary. Narrower in scope than googling, but 'to google' has one meaning not represented in the Wiktionary article which is "to look for a proper name, be it person, place or thing, using a search engine to the end of assessing it's internet presence as opposed to finding information about it". Courtland 2005-01-31

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sponseller Group[edit]

Advertising pure and simple.Snap Davies18:51, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising for a non-notable company. JoaoRicardo 20:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Paul August ☎ 22:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable adcruft. Okay, fine, just ad, but adcruft is such a nice looking word. --Deathphoenix 04:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Neshez[edit]

Non-notable band. Only 12 displayed hits, and the only one in English is a Wikipedia article. allmusic.com hasn't heard of them. Niteowlneils 19:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable; 12 Google hits, no reference in AMG or Dmoz. JoaoRicardo 20:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity band article. --Deathphoenix 04:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion, and no evidence of notability is given. Tuf-Kat 05:56, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. no notability. vandalism. - Beezer 01:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • The comment signed "Beezer" was actually added at 04:25, 2005 Feb 2 by 128.226.202.43, who seems to like trying different signatures: here we see him vandalizing another VfD page by removing my comment, replacing it with his own (saying the virtual opposite), and adding my signature to it. -- Hoary 06:33, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipes.com[edit]

Non-notable website--21 displayed hits. According to the article, less than one month old. Alexa rank of 3,703,838. Niteowlneils 20:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --fvw* 23:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, website advertisement. Megan1967 01:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable ad. Despite its name, Wikipedia is not a wiki encyclopedia about other wikis. --Deathphoenix 04:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, defaulting to "keep." Joyous 00:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Glasgow University Students' Representative Council[edit]

Non-notable, apparently average college student council--134 hits. Niteowlneils 20:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no eveidence of notability. If anybody wants to merge into Glasgow University that's fine by me. --fvw* 23:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. More than notable enough. --Centauri 03:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously not notable enough. Gamaliel 04:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The case for the notability of Glasgow University Students' Representative Council is far weaker than those for Glasgow University Union and Queen Margaret Union, in part because of the limited scope of the institution makes there very little to be said about it in its own right. Unlike the other two, this article could be merged into University of Glasgow (from which it sprung due to a dangling hyperlink). Weak Keep verging upon Merge with Redirect. Uncle G 15:36, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge and redirect for the reasons given by Uncle G. / up+land 16:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my opinion, reasonably large and/or old student councils and students' unions merit their own articles, and this one has been around for 118 years. Alarm 17:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Less than notable enough. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Student groups at universities are generally not notable, and this one conforms to that general rule. --BM 18:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Prefer delete but I'll live with redirect (which is more likely to prevent the article from reappearing). Rossami (talk) 23:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article doesn't mislead about it's subject's notability, and it looks like a legitimate separate topic. dbenbenn | talk 21:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glasgow University Union[edit]

Just some college student social club. If someone really thinks the info is encyclopedic, University of Glasgow seems to have plenty of room. Niteowlneils 21:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, if anybody wants to merge into Glasgow University that's fine by me. --fvw* 23:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain, this is not just any old social club, it is an important student body, it is also notable as the last student union in the world to ban women from membership, it was quite a struggle to get this overturned. If this is not notable enough quite a few entries might be deleted, I have tended to take a broad minded attitude to this in the past. It could create space problems to merge some of this into the main Glasgow University entry. PatGallachertalk 01:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Student unions are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Keep.--Centauri 03:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 04:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 06:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (or merge). I certainly want this kind of information somewhere in an unlimited-size encyclopedia. Kappa 06:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written article on an old (1885) and significant student organization at an important university. / up+land 11:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 14:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The student union deserves at most a mention in the article about the University. User:PatGallacher says merging this into the main article would create "space problems". That basically means that the University Union is not even significant in the context of an article about the university. If that is so, it certainly isn't significant enough to have an article on its own. But, in fact, the interesting features of the student union situation are already the subject of several paragraphs in the main article. --BM 14:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Votes like this one make me begin to think VfD (and Wikipedia in general) is a waste of my time. Between the two-thirds "consensus" requirement to delete an article, and the cadre of VfD habitues who will vote to keep almost anything, it seems that it is almost impossible to keep junk out of the Wikipedia. Practically the only things that can be deleted are the most egregious vanity articles written by high school kids about themselves and their bands, patent nonsense, and extremely bizarre original research. At the rate crap articles are accumulating, Wikipedia is sure to hit the one million article "goal" very soon, and most of it will be complete junk. I wonder whether Google will continue to give Wikipedia a high PageRank when three-quarters of it is trivia and crap, even if the other quarter is a useful resource? How low can the signal to noise ratio fall before people give up? --BM 14:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That is just so silly. Who is going to think, "Oh Wikipedia has a trivial article about such and such, so the articles about Shakespeare and particle physics must be crap"? Philip 15:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You miss the point. If I happen to find a good article in Wikipedia, I can tell whether it is good. But what if an article title comes up in a Google search? Or, what if I see a non-red link in another Wikipedia article? At some point, the probability that a Wikipedia article is going to be vanity, some narcissistic aspect of so-called Internet "culture", popular culture sub-trivia, something from a fictional universe, a sub-stub, a moronic list, or something else exasperating will mean that it won't be worth the probable annoyance of following the link. "Results" in Google searches from Wikipedia and its mirrors will start to be a plague, if that hasn't happened already in some areas. --BM 15:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Do some new page patrolling sometime. You'll witness that there is a significant amount of junk that is kept out of Wikipedia every day. This article is nowhere near being in that category. Uncle G 15:09, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
      • I did do new page patrolling at one point. You are correct that CSD gets rid of a lot of junk. It could get rid of much more if people would trust the administrators. The recent CSD policy vote shows that basically people will not trust the administrators; they insist on voting on anything that requires on any judgement at all. My experience from new page patrolling is that if something is not an obvious CSD candidate and has to go through VfD, it is an uphill battle to get it removed, unless it is such outright vanity or nonsense that nobody has the nerve to vote to keep it. Every keep vote has to be answered by more than two delete votes, and since people who are opposed to an article insist on voting "Merge" or "Redirect" (which equate to keep), it is actually even worse. In practice, deletion requires near unanimity. Each VfD failure to delete an article becomes a precedent for keeping other junk. On the next VfD about something similar, there will be people saying, "If we can keep X, why can't we have Y, which is at least as notable (etc) as X". So junk and precedents to keep junk are accumulating exponentially. As for this article, we are in the process of setting the precedent that not only every university on the planet will have an article, but also every university student organization that can mention any minor curiosity. The fact that the University of Glasgow has a strange student union structure is a minor wrinkle that perhaps merits a mention in the article on the University. It doesn't elevate the two student unions to the point where they should have articles of their own. --BM 15:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A rather insensitively phrased nomination from a user who appears to be completely lacking in knowledge of British universities. Philip 15:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There are approximately 700 students' unions in the United Kingdom. They don't all deserve their own articles, by a long chalk. Student unions are not inherently notable. However, those rare few that stand out from the crowd, and are notable, certainly do. The distinctly odd structure, the debates on joint membership, and the struggle over sexual equality make this one stand out from the crowd. Keep. Uncle G 15:09, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Keep I am one of those habitues that almost always votes keep. --JuntungWu 16:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my opinion, reasonably large and/or old student councils and students' unions merit their own articles. Alarm 17:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Chris 23:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:17, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Man Meets Dog[edit]

This article consists of a single sentence telling the author of the book with the same title. Only the page about the author links to it, and there has been no activity on this page since March 2004. slambo 21:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I suspect this book is sufficiently notable for an article, but keeping subsubstubs that aren't getting work isn't useful. --fvw* 23:20, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Keep, book has some notability, article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand, otherwise delete. The book seems notable enough, and so does author Konrad Lorenz, but if this article doesn't get expanded (by someone in the know), a redlink article is more likely to get someone to contribute than a substub. --Deathphoenix 04:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded; what Deathphoenix said. It's been a substub for close to a year now. —Korath (Talk) 06:09, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Carine Sturgeon[edit]

Non-notable student. 3 displayed hits, including her angelfire.com page. Niteowlneils 22:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. Paul August ☎ 22:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --fvw* 23:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 04:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, she will become notable enough for an article someday. From her angelfire space: "Carine's mission in life is to make sure every child and adult with a learning disability gets the proper help needed... Someday she hopes to start a charity that will provide anyone in school with tutors and resources needed to achieve a education free of charge." But, yes, delete what could only possibly be vanity now. Samaritan 06:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alter studio[edit]

Vanity. Paul August ☎ 22:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --fvw* 23:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete school project vanity. --Deathphoenix 04:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:32, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Eric Bruno Borgman[edit]

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

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Josh Stern[edit]

Non-notable roadie and website manager for Good Charlotte[7]. Niteowlneils 23:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --fvw* 23:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Delete as an extreme case of vanity. Either that or his girlfriend put the page up. 23skidoo 05:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity, even if his hair is red hot and fiery yellow. --Deathphoenix 05:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 01:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nivbed[edit]

Non notable has no potential to become encyclopedicGeni 23:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --fvw* 23:25, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

The article itself is no good - it's basically not even a stub, since it gives no real details about Nivbed aside from the user's opinion. However, as a matter of public record, I would say Nivbed is most certainly notable. His real name is Justin Cherry, and he's either one of the art directors or senior art director for Troika Games. Considering that his particular style of art isn't exactly all the rage with the public, no, he's not fantastically known. But he's not any more non-notable than, say, Christopher Shy, Marc Sasso, or Chad Michael Ward. Well, maybe slightly less notable than Chad Michael Ward. I suggest the author of the post re-write it; if the quality improves, keep it. If not, delete it, and I'll write a better one myself. --Adarael 7:33, 2005 January 30

  • Keep, needs expansion, I'm taking Adarael's word for it on that. Megan1967 04:36, 1 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 00:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Casting Pearls[edit]

Not notable (do not confuse with the Melys album when googling). --fvw* 23:06, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

  • Delete, not yet notable enough, band vanity. Megan1967 01:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the international tours bit can be verified, as the band would thusly meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 05:57, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might be propaganda --Neigel von Teighen 20:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Marcelo Albuquerque[edit]

Article doesn't establish notability, just that he went to college and has some unnamed job at a newspaper. 1000 hits for "Marcelo Albuquerque", but many, if not most, are for other people, like " Marcelo Albuquerque de Oliveira". Niteowlneils 23:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --fvw* 23:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why is this not a CSD??? --Neigel von Teighen 23:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Which case? There may be admins that would stretch the definition of 'test page' or 'vandalism' far enuf to cover it (cases 2 and 3), especially if the editor's other edits are iffy, but it certainly doesn't seem to meet the criteria for case 1 or 4 and above. Niteowlneils 03:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:26, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Otto Perry[edit]

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 23:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete not-notable. Johntex 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 01:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on the grounds that this reads like either an ad or vanity. If some evidence of notability can be found, might be worth a rewrite based on information present, but I'm not holding my breath. 23skidoo 04:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. About 1,210 Google hits for "Otto Perry", but didn't seem to be the same one. "Dr. Otto Perry" got 13 Google hits, "Otto Perry" naturopathic got 6. Despite my best efforts, he doesn't come out as being notable enough. --Deathphoenix 05:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a notable railway photographer of that name, but this isn't him. Delete. -JYolkowski 03:10, 1 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 00:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Joao carlos silvestre[edit]

In Portuguese.

A story about 13 year old João Carlos Silvestre murdering 22 year old Eduardo da Silva on March 15 2003. No proper context; no city mentioned; Google on a combination of both names brings no hits. Either a hoax or simply not notable at all. I was very tempted to speedy it. -- Curps 23:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable enough, possible hoax, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy as possible threat/harassment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Joyous 00:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Capslock friday[edit]

Only 10 google hits. [--Johntex]

  • DELETE. --FVW* 23:28, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
  • Delete!! --Neigel von Teighen 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE. HEY, IT'S FRIDAY. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE. GAMALIEL 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. (1) its too soon to say if its just a fad (even the article says so) (2)caps lock is and alwyas has been consider shouting, and thus rude and so is unlikely to gain widespread support. (3) its non-notable (nothing relevant on a quick google) (4) it might be considered a neologism (5) this article seems to me to be desgined to propogate the fad (6) its completely pointless. need I go on? Thryduulf 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but I have a swell idea: Strikethrough Saturday It's tomorrow! C'mon, everybody! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, it's Saturday where I am. --Calton 01:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I recall a few months back we had International Caps Lock Day or something. I believe it was deleted after some partisan debate. This is just more of the same. Now how about Type In Orange Tuesday? -R. fiend 02:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE, NN. IT'S STILL FRIDAY FOR NINE MORE MINUTES. --Deathphoenix 04:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I pxrsonxllx sxpport rxndxm x wednexdax. Dxnnx☯ 05:35, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

* I'm all for Monospace Monday, but vote delete on this one. --Plek 13:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • on any day of the week, DELETE THIS!!! --Idont Havaname 01:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I personally


prefer


Whitespace Wednesday. Szyslak 06:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Apart from anything else it's a bad idea. As this site is on the WWW we could have a lot of confusion. Different time zones may lead some people to be on CAPS LOCK FRIDAY whilst others are on Strikethrough Saturday. Due to Peer Pressure and not wanting to feel odd one out some users may feel obliged to use CAPS LOCK FRIDAY even though, where they live, it is Strikethrough. It is a sure cause of unrest and elitism.... --Marcus22 13:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • X'M SXRX WX CXXLD XRRXNGX SXMXTHXNG... --FVW* 14:28, 2005 FXB 2 (XTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable "tradition" on messageboards at most a year old. I'm pretty sure this was an attempt by some on 4chan's /b/ board to supplant "furry friday" (where /b/tards—don't give me that look, that's what they call themselves—alternate between posting furry porn and complaining about furries). — Gwalla | Talk 23:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It died a while ago, I think. Delete on wiki wednesday? humblefool® 00:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Prairie Dawgs Agility[edit]

Page is an advert for a non-notable dog training school. --TenOfAllTrades 23:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete though I think there's a great article to be written with this title. I'm gonna go buy some tiny orange traffic cones and a stopwatch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. For what it's worth, there already seems to be an article about this sport at Dog agility. --TenOfAllTrades 23:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Scoop this spam. But oh, the picture is so cute! I wish the article text didn't attribute a copyright to it; it would be nice elsewhere. Samaritan 23:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, obvious advertisement. Megan1967 01:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Kill spam. Kill all spam. Bearcat 20:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 20:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentally[edit]

  • Entire article consists of an exact duplicate of the Wiktionary entry. I had initially speedied it at another user's request, but since I'm not entirely certain (on reflection) that it's OK to speedy it, I'm putting it here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's only a list of two broken links --Neigel von Teighen 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A redirect to fundamental would do no harm. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, none of the articles in fundamental deal with fundamental in the sense that is meant in fundamentally, so I suppose, in a way, it would do harm... as in being an inaccurate redirect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you look at Talk:Fundamentally You'll see that the article was created by mistake by the author, who added a speedy delete request to the talk page. So it seems it would qualify under the new speedy delete rules, uder sole author request. Paul August ☎ 00:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hehe, I just noticed that on my own and came here to inform everyone. D'oh. Speedying it now. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_28&oldid=1142647779"