Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 12

April 12

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intercounty Baseball League

A local amateur league. The language is trying to make it look as if this is a minor league at the same level as the Canadian Baseball League or the Northern League, but it's just a bunch of guys who like to get together and play baseball. RickK 00:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete definitely a small thing, either 528 or 682 Google hits (only time ever that I got more hits with quotes than without, what's up with that?). Article seems to be written to make it seem bigger than it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • RickK and I have clarified some of the issues involved. Anyway, I created the article so the links to the league in the articles about the cities in it would have an article to link to, not to make the league sound like anything it isn't. The league is not, though, just "a bunch of guys who like to get together and play baseball." It is a commercial enterprise whose results are covered by major media outlets in southern Ontario. I'll be happy with whatever decision is reached here, because even if the article is deleted, the deletion will set a standard for other articles. Which I intend to see exercised. John FitzGerald 12:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, sportscruft. Megan1967 10:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a serious sports league, it's been going for 86 years and has 9 teams. Sheldrake 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Their own website calls them amateurs. Do you know how many amateur baseball leagues there are in the United States? Should we have articles on all of them? RickK 19:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? Wikipedia aint paper. Organized amateur baseball leagues, that pass a notability test, are an important part of american culture. I see great things in baseball. Klonimus 20:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are the leagues of which you speak covered in national newspapers, as the Intercounty is? John FitzGerald 20:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Megan1967 —Wahoofive | Talk 19:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Rick. Radiant_* 08:55, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 17:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• But you know what? Even if they are a minor semi-commercial, semi-rec league now, they are 86 years old and notable historically. For a historically important period of time, all baseball in North America was minor semi-commercial, semi-rec league stuff, and this was the highest level of baseball play around, and it was popular, and while most players would not be encyclopedic, the longstanding large regional leagues absolutely would be. 3270 Google hits, none double-counted, discussing either of eight of the nine teams (you can imagine the trouble with Toronto Maple Leafs.) Still prominently covered on local TV news I watch and in daily newspapers I read. I'm not a baseball fan. Keep. Samaritan 19:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Important part of the culture of Soviet Canuckistan. Agree with Samaritan above about the relevance and notability of established amature baseball leagues. Klonimus 20:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet again another nonsense vote from this troll. RickK 19:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • RickK: What is the wikipedia policy on personal attacks again? Klonimus 20:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So when someone adduces the importance of the league to Canadian culture you call that nonsense. Now why might you say that? Is it because you're a devoted student of Canadian culture, or because you think Canadian culture is nonsense? John FitzGerald 20:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I voted keep because I think this baseball league is notable and worthy of being included in a truly great encyclopedia. Anyone who has hung around VfD, knows that I am almost as inclusionist as Kappa is; especially when it comes to topics that might not be included in a paper encyclopedia, such as this baseball league. I'm just trying to add a little humor to the VfD process which is often filled with sourpusses, and people who make 1-3 word votes. Klonimus 06:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, John, that wasn't aimed at you or the article in question, and solely at Klonimus and the pattern and nature of his/her VfD edits. RickK 23:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • RickK: Inclusionism is not a crime. If you have a beef with me, air it on my user talk page. I personally don't appreciate it when you attack my credibility in VfD. My opinion, even though you may disagree with it, is worth every bit as much as yours, even though I may disagree with it. Klonimus 06:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • And BTW, I listed this at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board, hoping that more pairs of Canadian eyes could give us a perspective. I figured if it really is an "Important part of the Canadian Culture", then my objections will be overwhelmed. I am trying to be fair. RickK 23:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't really think you were being anti-Canadian. I was just making a couple of points about a standard problem on Wikipedia. To avoid biassing the vote, though, I'll tell you about them elsewhere. John FitzGerald 00:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think a league that has been around for 85 years, covered in the local press and has teams across southern Ontario is notable enough, regardless of whether the players are paid or not. Webgeer 22:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though admittedly through local bias (hey, if I can watch the London Majors on TV at home, they must be relatively important). Adam Bishop 23:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, "covered by major media outlets" sounds like a good reason. Kappa 08:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more notable than schools. Grue 18:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes my notability bar by dint of longevity. -- 8^D ^gab 02:49, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Keep. Media coverage and history easily establish notability. ElBenevolente 16:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but, please, expand! Sarg 18:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sheldrake et al. Early baseball played outside of the USA is notable. Sarg's point is good, too. GeeZee 23:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nawa Akram

Delete Google returns 0 hits; going by the content I'd say this is an obvious vanity page Offtherails 01:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete article doesn't even make an attempt at notability. This is one of the least notable ones I've seen yet! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I dunno... a Kurd living in Ontario? Who likes both rugby and Chinese food at the same time?!? Such a fantastic multicultural melange is almost enough to cross the bar of notability... but, eh, delete. -- 8^D ^gab 03:19, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Oliver Keenan 09:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 23:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New forms of english

Should be merged with English language or deleted. Kaldari 03:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I vote delete. But if other people vote to merge, I suggest that Regional accents of English speakers is the proper destination. --Angr/_comhrá 05:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to destination suggested by Angr. Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This material is covered in Standard English, Regional accents of English speakers, List of dialects of the English language, the articles in Template:English dialects by continent, and elsewhere. This article is an unwikified and speculative personal essay. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, material covered better by existing articles, as demonstrated by Ten. 209.2.145.57 01:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote was mine, server had timed me out. Barno 01:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Barno said it best. --172.152.170.240 03:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote was mine, cookie problems. --Idont Havaname 03:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Norway's Religion

Covered in Demographics of Norway LockeShocke 20:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• How 'bout just moving it to Religion in Norway, which I think follows the normal naming convention for the common subarticle "Religion in x" (like Religion in China, Religion in the United States, etc.) --Dmcdevit 01:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move Redirect to Religion in Norway, per Dmcdevit; then expand - I'm sure that there's enough stuff on a country the size of Norway to fill a good-sized article... can go beyond demographics if it addresses historical shifts. -- 8^D ^gab 03:12, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Move as per dmcdevit. Klonimus 07:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If and when the religion section of Demographics of Norway grows too large for that page, then a new Religion in Norway article can be started. But at the moment there's no need for such a page. --Angr/_comhrá 05:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect this and Religion of Norway to Demographics of Norway until there's enough material to break out an article. Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I submit to you that there is now "enough material to break out an article" for Religion in Norway (although this vfd is not the place to make decisions with respect to the Religion in Norway article). -- 8^D ^gab 19:37, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Move to Religion in Norway. Megan1967 10:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have created Religion in Norway covering Sámi and Norse mythology, the conversion of Norway, the Norwegian reformation, the Norwegian established church the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway and religion in the current day. This material would fit poorly in the Demograpics of Norway. There is nothing in the Norway's Religion article that isn't in the Religion in Norway article so delete this article. Capitalistroadster 11:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, great job making an aricle out of thin air. But why no redirect, as this is probably a common link/search term? --Dmcdevit 16:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect, since now there is Religion in Norway. Martg76 12:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Religion in Norway. We already have that article, so do not move. Sjakkalle 13:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect harmlessly to Religion in Norway. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Religion in Norway. Dave the Red (talk) 19:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• m:Wiki is not paper. And I'm getting sick of quoting that. It's tiny, aye, actually so short I'd hesitate on calling it a stub, even - but clearly, it is relevant. As for my vote; redirect to Religion in Norway. And stop VfD'ing pages without reading the guidelines, everybody, please...--TVPR 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to CR's much better (and consistent with our naming convention) Religion in Norway. This substub is only a point or two away from being patent nonsense: "...and then there is 11% which is just other religions which are unknown." If eleven percent of 4.5 million people follow those religions, how do they stay unknown? If they're unknown how were they counted? Probably the author was just trying to quote from a poll and poorly interpreted its catchall "other" summarization or "no answer given" or "no religious affiliation". Barno 01:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me, as I don't know my religion, so that's ho I would have answered. :) But I've never yet heard of "unknown" as a choice on a census... --Dmcdevit 02:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Olinda Cho

Gaurav1146 marked this vfd on March 30, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, wikify, and expand, if I may say so. Quick Google search seems to confirm this. So, it's notable, and encylopedic to me, if probably trivial to some. --Dmcdevit 04:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Kicked out? Was some kind of scandal involved? Keep but anyone that hasn't reached one of the top 3 spots or done something notable since can't have an article unless it's in a List of Singapore Idol contestants. Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, idolcruft. Megan1967 10:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Game show non-winner. Merge to a list if it really must stay, but I question if anyone will remember or care even just a year from now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or put on Wikinews. Radiant_* 14:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 22:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, very useless. Grue 18:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Overdriven fluorescent light

Delete - a how-to, and a pretty problematical one at that. - DavidWBrooks 18:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article needs to be cleaned up and made encyclopedic. That can't happen if it gets deleted, and this is an encyclopedic topic. Klonimus 07:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Written in the wrong tone, but certainly not a how-to. Suggest it be offered to the Cleanup Taskforce if they have people specialized in this area. Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 10:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not anti-howto (I voted keep on the car wash one) but following this sounds like a bad idea to me. At the very least, not something that really needs to be in a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain your reasoning? Klonimus 18:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it sounds potentially dangerous. For example, The older magnetic ballasts will self-destruct if you try to rewire them. I know also that overdriven fluorescent lights also generate more heat, and can be a fire hazard or melt objects nearby. It's not something relatively safe, like overclocking a CPU. As mentioned, I don't see this being useful in a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, possibly with fluorescent lamp, or keep. I've re-written in a more encyclopediac tone. --Carnildo
• Delete I'm not comfortable with the naked how-to tone of the article. Contrast it with overclocking which I think has a much better approach to a practical-knowledge article. Also... overclocking a processor is teraflops more notable/encyclopedic/useful than tampering with electricity. Feco 02:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How to light your farts for an example of how-to-ism gone wild.Feco 03:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any "how-to"-ism in the re-written version. It describes what is done in overdriving, but not how. --Carnildo 03:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, less how-to-like now, Wikipedia is neither paper nor censored for the protection of people who shouldn't be playing with electricity. Nickptar 14:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KTAB News

Looks like an uninformative stub without any potential to be anything but a web guide entry.  :) — Helpful Dave 00:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.  :) — Helpful Dave 00:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems notable enough with 4840 google hits, but Alexa rank is abysmal (1,886,406). Willing to change if other info surfaces. Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advert. Megan1967 10:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the Alexa rank. Just imagine if the top two million websites all felt entitled to articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a web directory--nixie 02:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ian Guy

A non-notable academic and teacher. CDC (talk) 00:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, same person as the anon who created Casey's Nursing Model (I know because they signed the article and linked to the Ian Guy article in their signature.) If this were a logged in user, we could Userfy this article, but since he's an anon, we should delete. RickK 01:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This anon is now user:Ianguy. Matt 12:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm a graduate in this field and I've never heard of him. Oliver Keenan 09:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ubuntu Is Also An Operating System

Stubby duplicate of Ubuntu Linux, but with a terrible name, so I don't want to redirect. CDC (talk) 00:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem to add any new information to aforementioned article. Can't imagine anyone typing that in and then being redirected. --Alexs letterbox 02:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: agree with Alexs. Jonathunder 04:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with you lot. — JIP | Talk 04:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful (include history info on talk of Ubuntu Linux) and delete. Not a useful redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gosh, terrible article name. The Ubuntu Linux article is fairly comprehensive, so a simple delete will suffice. Oliver Keenan 09:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Is Also A VfD Vote Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content that isn't already better covered in Ubuntu Linux. I'm an Ubuntu user, and by WP standards that topic is encyclopedic, but neither this topic (if you can identify one from the title) nor its content is. Mgm, there is no useful material here to merge, so there is no GFDL reason to keep its edit history. Barno 02:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings

This proposal is hopelessly against the spirit of a wiki.

• VfD should not be the place to discuss WikiProjects. Instead, if you think we should (or should not) have a policy on inappropriate projects, please join the general discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects.

additionally, there's an Informal vote here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings

Because of objections to the use of VfD on this thing, I invite anyone to vote 'object' or 'keep' here and also vote and comment on the project's talk page — Davenbelle 16:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. unwiki. — Davenbelle 01:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Before I vote, I wish to mention that I support this project. Now the disclaimer is done, I wish to point out that I think this VfD may not be needed. We are trying to have a debate on a possible policy, and it does not help things that this page is on VfD. I know there is setiment that this project goes against the idea of Wikipedians being equal. I have to hand that to you, but I still wish to vote keep for this article so the debate/discussion can continue on this delecate subject. Zscout370 01:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  thing's talk page already has an informal vote going against it; this formalizes it. — Davenbelle 01:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but not Support I'm not sure that VfD is the proper way to go about getting rid of a proposal, if indeed proposals should be gotten rid of at all. I do not support this proposal, but feel it should remain where it is and be given the chance to succeed or fail on its own, there's already a vote on the Talk page (it's not doing well either). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Then once the vote is done, and if CoolCat (who has been blocked for the 3RR) still wants to do this, then just userify this. I am pretty much ready to give up on this and move on, my stress and Wikistress is building up very quickly. Zscout370 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  fyi, this originated on User:Coolcat's user page. — Davenbelle 16:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I wrote something, but apparently did not submit it. This place is not a Tetris Tournament. It is childish at best. Fadix 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleting a proposals page is not a good way to stop a proposal. Vote against it, don't delete it. The fact that I'm for the proposal has nothing to do with this by the way. Howabout1 01:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I know the vote for the idea has nothing to do with this VfD, I still wanted to put that disclaimer there so people will know how I feel about this page (since I have seen others put in small print that they either created or did x edits to the page up for VfD). Zscout370 01:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal strongly. That said, the way to get rid of it is to express why it's so distasteful on the talk page; there's even a nice section explicitly for voting and commenting. Vote against it and argue on the talk page, but don't use vfd as a battlefield for policy--it's not fair and it's outside the usual process. Meelar (talk) 01:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  So, Meelar, you wish to keep this page, but not support the project as per Starblind? Zscout370 01:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Correct. Sorry, should have clarified. And I'd like to reemphasize that vfd should in most cases be for articles. Meelar (talk) 02:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Its alright, thank for stopping by. The parting gifts can be found to the left :). Zscout370 02:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. VfD should only be used for non-articles in rare cases; since this proposal seems to be destined to die on its own, this is not one of those cases. android↔talk 02:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm having fun with it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  good point! ;-) — Davenbelle 04:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Question: "unwiki" and similar sentiments are not listed as one of the problems that may require deletion. Do we even have (for lack of a better word) jurisdiction here, as none of the listed policies are for WikiProjects? --Dmcdevit 04:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete talk that you don't like. Just let it die. silsor 06:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Most of the talk has been against this for awhile. How else do such things die? — Davenbelle 06:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Alone. In the rain. If popular opinion is strongly against it, it won't be used. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Like Roy Batty? — Davenbelle 16:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, VFD is not the way to get rid of such a proposal. Agree with Mirv's sentiment above. Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Especially since there's a vote on the topic's talk page. Vote there. Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• This feels like an obvious personal attack magnet, so I'm really not in favor of it. So I'd vote delete. However, people correctly state that VfD wouldn't really work in getting rid of this. Maybe we need a policy regarding inappropriate WikiProjects, or something like that. Radiant_* 10:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow it to die a natural death. VfD doesn't need to be a House Committee on Un-Wikipedian Activities; well-intentioned but misguided policy proposals are already handled through Village Pump discussion and other avenues. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I'll be voting against this proposal right after I sign this, I think the higher-ups might want to consider a policy discouraging listing policies under debate for deletion. --InShaneee 19:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons articulated by TenOfAllTrades | Talk . Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VFD is not the way to get rid of such a proposal as MGM suggested, Its under developement, almost no improvement has been done, its been "developed". Voting is premature currently as there is no finished product. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a proposal I support (I requested that I be removed from an earlier version of the ranking list) but non-support of a proposal is not a valid reason to delete it. Please keep it, even if it fails to gain sufficient support to become widely used, as a historical record of an interesting idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I personally oppose the project. If the project becomes defunct, a Userfy might be in order, but VfD is not the place to discuss WikiProjects.--Deathphoenix 13:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't the correct procedure for getting rid of WikiProjects. --Carnildo 01:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – If you dislike the proposal, feel free to vote against it. VfD is not the proper route to take. – ClockworkSoul 03:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only because this shouldn't go through VfD - at least not before the issue is discussed on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects. No support for the project by me. VladMV ٭ ^talk 15:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. very useful. --DuKot 01:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just a (very sketchy and possibly misguided) policy proposal, no abuse of process, policy or wikiquette going on here. Alai 23:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unwiki. While I appreciate other user's concerns that a VfD isn't typical procedure, I would also point out that there is no procedure for handling inappropriate WikiProjects. I have read the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects, and I would argue that this project comes under the category 'cow pies' or 'rhubarb pies' (to which the appropriate response is a VfD), since in my opinion it contravenes a number of policies. Particularly: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, in that it encourages prejudice against users, and "suggest[s] a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is", and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, in that it encourages the assumption that certain users will act in bad faith. It also precludes the idea that Wikipedians can learn from the past and improve their wikibilities. In the words of Jimbo, "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites." Finally, I apologise for such a long vote! --bainer 07:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huchi

Delete. I have removed wrong information, and what remains is a useless explanation on an Ainu word. Huci is the correct Ainu Romanization, not huchi. - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:21, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

• TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. 132.205.95.62 02:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even if the Mount Fuji etymology is definitely academically wrong, it seems to have some currency, and this should be explained in the article. More important, as Huchi is a major Ainu deity (a fire goddess) as well as just the word for fire, it has the potential to become a real article if anyone can research the topic a bit more.--Pharos 03:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  It's neither the word for fire nor the name of fire god. It just means grandmother. See Talk:Mount Fuji#Etymology. - TAKASUGI Shinji 09:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

• I just transwikied to wiktionary, (Wiktionary:Transwiki:Huchi), as it is only info about word now. I would recommend simply redirecting to Ainu, as the "Religion" section already has a sentence about Huchi. But if it can be made substantial enough to stand on its own, (a god should have that potential) that's good too, but it is obscure. (~200k ppl.) --Dmcdevit 03:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is, if it really does mean a fire god. --Dmcdevit 16:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. From Shinji's statement, it seems that the god in question was named Ape-huci-kamuy, not "Huchi", which would at most be a redirect. - Mustafaa 06:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 23:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schnook

Pure dicdef, I see no potential for growth or redirect. Already been transwikied, so delete--Dmcdevit 01:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dictionary definition that has already been transwikied. Oliver Keenan 09:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 10:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lowbrow.com

Advertising for a non-notable website. Possibly just vanity for members (as the list of "popular posters" is suspicious). Has had an "explain significance" tag on it since its birth a week ago with no change. delete--Dmcdevit 01:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Alexa rank of 394,479. Delete. Meelar (talk) 02:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a mere 33 pages link there too. Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Oliver Keenan 09:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam, webcruft, non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam and advertisement, non notable--Coolcaesar 19:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Highbrow

Pure dicdef, I see no potential for growth or redirect. Already been transwikied, so delete--Dmcdevit 01:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I think there is a lot of room for expansion, discussing the emergence/disapearance of high/low/middlebrown culture in various times/countries examples of each. Keep.--Samuel J. Howard 03:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Charles Matthews 10:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and allow me to write an article about Highbrow (Transformers) and add a link to that into this. — JIP | Talk 11:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. I think there were some famous sociological studies on this subject. Klonimus 06:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as there is some potential. --Mrclarke 16:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 20:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sunset High School (Portland), Southridge High School and Westview High School (Beaverton)

This page has been repeatedly blanked and redirected to Beaverton School District. In order to get a consensus on the school and stop the revert war, I listed it here. --BaronLarf 01:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• The article was never blanked. It was redirected. Kingturtle 03:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that revert debates are more properly listed on WP:RFC. Since you don't want the article to be deleted, you shouldn't put it here. Radiant_* 09:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree. Vote below. Andrewa 13:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't put it here. just for the record. Kingturtle 20:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep

• Keep as is. Passes the pokemon test. --Spinboy 02:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the pokemon test? Kingturtle 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The (somewhat spurious) argument that, since all pokemon are covered in Wikipedia, anything that is more notable than a pokemon should be kept. But note that millions of people worldwide can recognize any pokemon on sight, so arguably there aren't that many things more notable than pokemon. Also note that the pokemon test is usually invoked by people who have the POV that pokemon are stupid, and that they use it as an argument for keeping anything that they do not consider stupid. Using it like that is, obviously, fallacious. Radiant!Radiant_* 08:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is nothing spurious about that argument at all, how do you figure? Saying there are millions of people worldwide who can recognize Pokemon on sight is no different than saying the same millions can recognize a school on sight — these are fairly easily and obviously recognizable things. Now, if you start asking for specifics, things change dramatically. Not even my son, an avid fan of Pokemon, would be able to tell you the specific name of every Pokemon character on sight — yet we have a complete and all-inclusive index of Pokemon on Wikipedia, some of which are completely empty and vacant stubs. (!) This is just one reason why I, and presumably others, make reference to the so-called Pokemon Comparative Notability Test. Sure, it sounds funny, but Wikipedia is not paper and I've yet to meet a school article which didn't have the potential to be expanded and useful in an encyclopedic capacity. This horse has been beaten up long enough— fix your sig already. —RaD Man (talk) 02:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It is spurious because WP:WIN consistent, and an argument applying to one topic (fictional creatures) does not generally apply to an entirely unrelated topic (schools). It is often used fallaciously because it relies on the assumption that more people, worldwide, would recognize or be familiar with the item in question (the school in this case), than with individual pokemon. For the smithsonian or eiffel tower that would be obviously true. For this school, obviously not. Radiant_* 08:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
          • Your argument does not hold water with me, sorry. Each of these three articles are well over two pages long with room for greater expansion, even Jimbo thinks these should be kept. And besides that, consistency is something we need to work towards. —RaD Man (talk) 20:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I suggest the article is improved and expanded.--AAAAA 03:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. there's no reason not to have a page on a high school. This isn't a very well-written one, but there are far worse stubs out there. Bovlb 04:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do not redirect. Redirection implies a lack of notability. These schools all pass the Toowoomba Grammar School test. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 18:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the Toowoomba Grammer School test? Kingturtle 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This school's article has more content than the Toowoomba Grammar School's article did at the time it survived VfD. Hence by precedent this article should be kept as an informative article about an encyclopedic subject. (I wrote this orginally from a school library computer, without being logged in)Klonimus 20:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • In other words, the TGS should also be merged. Radiant_* 08:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, no good reason to delete. Bky1701 09:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please, even the founder agrees we should. [1] Yuckfoo 05:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not quote Jimbo out of context please. Radiant_* 10:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world." - Jimbo Wales. Seems rather in context here IMO. Keep  ALKIVAR™ 18:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not really, as in the same post Jimbo says he doesn't like school stubs much. Radiant_* 23:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Obviously your not reading the same thing as me. He was arguing that just because he doesnt like school stubs, that it doesnt mean we should use that as A REASON TO DELETE THEM.  ALKIVAR™ 23:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Can we please stop these damn school deletions already!?!?  ALKIVAR™ 04:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Only when people stop writing crap school articles in the first place. They're known to be harmful to WP's reputation and credibility, and I'd like to see one of you so-called inclusionists to prove otherwise, or shut the hell up about this "inherent notability" BS. Chris talk back 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Comment: As one of the inclusionists who you've so politely told to shut the hell up, I'd like to see some evidence of how inclusion of high school articles is harmful to WP's reputation before you shift the burden of proof to us. The initial vanity pages added by pimply high schoolers aren't much to speak of, but upon improvement they have merit. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
                • I think that various people have provided more than enough. Like I said, it's about time you either quit arguing, or actually come up with a good counter-argument that answers the real issues, such as reputation, credibility, coverage, storage (something people would appreciate if they read WP:WINP instead of simply quoting its title), maintainability, usefulness, duplication of information, and the inclusion of trivia that is removed everywhere else. Is it too much to ask that someone actually comes up with a good argument why pointless articles on schools that are for all intents and purposes near-identical aren't harmful, relevant to the points I've mentioned? Is it too much to ask that people stop making dumb comparisons between schools, which are infinite on WP scale, and other finite sets (Pokemon, railway stations, albums)? Is it too much to ask that you even consider the other points of view, instead of dismissing it? Finally, is it too much to at least take the suggestion of articles on generic school types (face it - 95% of US high schools are unremarkable, we should have articles for the few that are remarkable, and a generic article describing the general common features of the rest) to replace these endless stubs seriously? Is it too much to ask? Of course not. So why won't you do it? Chris talk back 03:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with links to the school district, and improve the articles.--BaronLarf 13:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all three need expansion though. -- Lochaber 13:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - to my mind, schools epitomize the class of entities that Wikipedia can include where a traditional encyclopaedia cannot. - TB 14:01, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep - School's are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you mean "schools are notable"? ;) Kingturtle 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently your school was more notable than his.  ;-) --Samuel J. Howard 03:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a merger that included all the content in these articles would be ungainly. - SimonP 21:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Beaverton School District, I really don't care which. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • It was merged there, and still is. —Korath (Talk) 10:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the three pages are quite different in content, but I no longer believe there is any justification for deleting honest efforts at providing information to this encyclopedia. The amount of esoteric make-believe covered in Wikipedia requires far more attention and consideration for "notability" than whether any particular school is or is not. I can only think that those who express the opinion that these articles are not important enough to keep have not spent much time looking around at what all is in Wikipedia! Schools are and will always be an important part of any community, and what is significant about any community is really to be judged by those familiar with that community. Each school was a big deal to all who attended it and is of interest to those who might someday attend. If an article remains stubby, then make it into a redirect and move the info to the proper political entity (city, county, borough, etc.) until someone comes along to develop it into a real article, like this one: Moanalua High School. - Marshman 01:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School deletion arguments waste more processor time, hard disk space (via edits to vote and comment), and bandwidth than just letting verifiable and factual material about educational institutions that shape peoples lives be. Samaritan 19:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be a valid argument if school deletion arguments were about hard disk space. They aren't. Wikipedia has plenty of disk space. Wikipedia is not paper. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we delete things that are not encyclopedic even if there is enough disk space for them. My autobiography is factual and verifiable and there is enough disk space for it, but if I were to create it as an article it would be deleted. Dpbsmith
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(talk) 20:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • It has never been established that school's are not encyclopedic by nature. Klonimus 20:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If it had been established that they were encyclopedic by nature, they wouldn't get so many votes to delete every time they came up on vfd, would they? As an aside, it's pretty gauche for someone who hasn't been around for even three weeks to tell us how things have always been done. —Korath (Talk) 20:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Korath, please feel some wikilove. Everything is done in good faith.
        
        Truely, It has never been established that school's are not encyclopedic by nature. So that leave's it open for people who feel that all school's are encyclopedic by nature. I've researched this issue quite extensivly, and to the best of my knowledge, the issue of intrinsic school inclusion is still very much in the air and has not been resolved to anyone satisfaction.
        
        And I will advocate for the inclusion of all school's, and try to convince people of the merits of beliefs, because I beleive that my beleifs lead ot a better encyclopedia. Which is what we all want. Klonimus 02:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Note Above argument is fallacious. The fact that it has "never been established that schools are not encyclopedic by nature" has no bearing on the fact that neither has it been established conclusively that all of them are. Thus, this premise is invalid, and the conclusion does not follow from the remaining premises. Chris talk back 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Honestly, this debate is stupid. It really shouldn't matter whether it is a redirect or a separate article. Apparently, multiple people want this to be a separate article, even after it was turned into a redirect by VfD's last decision. Why not placate them by letting them have the separate article? It isn't as though the information itself is in dispute; if that were the case, then the article would not have been merged. Since we're only talking about whether or not the content should have its own article, then why in the world should any of us care one whit? There are lots of stubs with less info than this page that we are all apparently okay with keeping. Why are so many of you continually arguing about this? It's so stupid. If we redirect it, someone will just reinstate the article, and it will just get listed on VfD again. Since it really doesn't matter one way or the other as to where the content is listed, why not just let them keep their separate article? I vote keep, and urge everyone voting 'redirect' to reconsider their reasoning. — Eric Herboso 04:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Heck, why have vfd at all? There's always at least one or two people who desperately want to keep stuff like NoPoint.org. And even if it's deleted, why not create it again? I mean, disallowing filibustering and making us debate the same article over and over to enforce what was already decided is stupid; we should just let the minority get its way if they're loud enough. —Korath (Talk) 10:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Score -1: Offtopic. —RaD Man (talk) 01:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • You, sir, are full of shit. I repeat: if vfd results are not honored, what's the point of having them? —Korath (Talk) 02:24, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If high schools sell alumni goodies and photos commemorating proms, a high school is important enough to have a Wikipedia article (elementary schools and junior highs are still under question). As long as it does not name the current teachers or some specific students who are currently attending, the article will remain important enough. Wiwaxia 03:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I believe that all school articles should be kept, if they are more than stubs. For me this goes for elementary and middle schools too. It's not just about the impact that they have on lives and communities, or about using Wikipedia as a repository of information on more than famous whos and whatwhens. Schools may not have a big impact on history individually, but with few exceptions, celebrities don't either, and yet Wikipedia tends to keep them. It seems rather odd to me that people think we should only keep articles about things well know by a lot of people, and get rid of articles on things less well known.--Quintucket 03:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate, too big to merge nicely, see WP:FICT Kappa 19:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What does 'fiction in Wikipedia' have to do with school articles? Are we talking about fictional schools here? Radiant_* 10:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are important. Oliver Chettle 23:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable -CunningLinguist 01:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect - but don't delete. Also, please don't use votes for deletion to handle stupid edit wars where neither side wants the article deleted. Thank you. - Martin 23:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete

• Delete unless someone rewrites the hell out of this article. As it stands, it doesn't demonstrate much of anything special. AP? IB? A lot of schools do that. Anything else? Mike H 03:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• keep deleted, no demonstration of notability. Dunc|☺ 08:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I see nothing special about the school. Saopaulo1 09:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Respect the original decision of "redirect"

• Keep - as redir to school district. Tax-levying governmental agencies - like school districts - are notable. DAVODD 02:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. What harm was it doing in redirect form? Chris talk back 03:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. Merge and Redirect with Beaverton School District as per the original decision.--TheGrza 06:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - Skysmith 07:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I believe the redirect to be appropriate. Mergism makes the world a better place. Radiant_* 09:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• What Radiant said. Not enough information to justify a full-fledged article on a rather, shall we say, not notable, topic. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per consensus, unless you want people to start relisting every school article they find until they're deleted. (I'd complain about there being separate vote sections, but I'm starting to doubt anyone looks at what the opposing factions write for school vfds anymore anyway.) —Korath (Talk) 10:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect This should never have been put on Vfd. Unless the Beaverton School District is up for deletion (which it is not), the only question is whether the school articles should be redirects or not. Consensus should be found on those talk pages, not here. I'm sure that once the school info is robust enough, it can be put on its own page without problems.  The Steve  13:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. A list of AP classes is not material for an independent article. Postdlf 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, nothing notable about these particular schools. -- Dcfleck 13:37, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Redirect as per previous decision. This is no big deal, and probably won't stop the revert war; If they didn't listen to the last vote, why will this one help? Andrewa 13:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Just redirect it. No harm in redirecting. Dave the Red (talk) 18:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Redirects are useful as index entries, and guarantee that people looking for a specific article will find it, regardless of whether global search is enabled or not, etc. I continue to see no benefit whatsoever having two closely related short topics on separate pages rather than having them on the same page. Is it important to make sure that people looking at Sunset High School won't see Southridge High School at the same time? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Not notable. It's just a school. --Improv 20:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Merging the articles would make it pretty clear what parts of the current content are ephemeral or pure fluff. Do not split these off again until the content of the merged article demonstrates the need for such action. Nothing prevents people from working on an encyclopedic article about any of these schools while the articles are merged. --Michael Snow 21:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as per original vote. Content already elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. --Carnildo 22:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, and only break out if content is sufficient to do so. Cool Hand Luke 00:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as before, for same reasons as before. Jonathunder 01:13, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Redirect as before. I also disapprove the ugly formatting of this VfD. Grue 19:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect. The ability to write more on a topic does not mean that one should (e.g. almost anyone could write a long article about themselves if they tried, but that does not make vanity articles keepable). Average Earthman 20:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect all schools. If wikipedia was to have an article on every school, even the ones in the U.S and U.K, there would be way to many. Please only write articles with special circumstances surrounded, as the Couloumbine school (massacre) and schools with really old histories. Thechamelon 00:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect - Not much to merge that is different from the redirect target but merge what is necessary. Will there ever be a finish to these school votes? - Tεxτurε 18:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Only when those in the "full of shit" and "fucking nuts" categories on the Carlin Scale stop using fallacious reasoning to back up their "keep" votes, and realise that what they're doing is inherently harmful to Wikipedia and its reputation. Chris talk back 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• a 2003 VfD discussion of Sunset High School (Portland) led to a decision to have that article redirected to Beaverton School District. however, that redirect only lasted 3 weeks before an anon user switched it back to the text-article. i recently came upon this situation and re-inserted the redirect. my action has been disputed, and the article is now in VfD again. there is a long-standing debate regarding whether U.S. public high schools should have articles. if you are unfamiliar with the debate, read Wikipedia:Deletion policy/schools and Are high schools encyclopedic?. Kingturtle 01:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to combine this vfd along with the next 2 into a single string, to avoid duplication of commentary? -- 8^D ^gab 02:41, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    • Yes. Radiant_* 10:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• A number of those who voted "Redirect" mentioned that the schools should be broken back out when there was enough information on the individual high school pages. (Cool Hand, Michael Snow, Thesteve, Johnleemk) I've been adding information specific to each school to their pages, and I was wondering what you believe the threshold is for separate articles. --BaronLarf 15:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Personal opinion: a) If the school article is more than one full page of traditional print, say 5-10 paragraphs, then it is no longer possible to glance from one school to another on the same page. And it will take more than one mouse click to scroll past it to the next school. So at that point it's at least reasonable to break out a separate article. b) If the BEEFSTEW score of the broken-out article would be somewhere up in the eight-to-ten range, as a practical matter it's unlikely that anyone will even nominate it for deletion, much less get consensus for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. I was hoping this would VfD would lead to a consensus, but the issue is split 50-50, with lots of people chiming in. I count about 22 keeps' and about 22 redirects. maybe we should take this to the Arbitration Committee? Kingturtle 03:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. You are welcome to try for RfC or a policy consensus, however (although I predict that neither will actually give consensus, unfortunately). Radiant_* 12:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • With no consensus, isn't the deletion policy default to declare "no consensus" and keep the articles? --BaronLarf 15:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4 score and 7 years ago

Horrible name for an already existing topic. Information should be merged into Gettysburg address. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this article since it has some historic value. Also, it mentions some pop culture references to it too. --TheSamurai 02:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no potential for expansion, but merge pop culture into Gettysburg address. Howabout1 03:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not worth merging. android↔talk 03:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't merge the pop culture stuff - just because a character says "four score and seven donuts ago" or something doesn't make it relevant. FreplySpang (talk) 03:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with nominator, merge and redirect. Meelar (talk) 03:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Add this fun fact - people always get the intonation wrong. The say "four score (pause) and seven years ago" when, at that time (when counting years in 'scores' was common), it would have been pronounced with the same intonation that we might say "at 2:17 PM". Learnt that sitting in on a language and culture class. -- 8^D ^gab 04:14, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Not sure about the merge-ability of pop trivia, but a redirect seems in order, as it's a common phrase that'll probably be a search term. --Dmcdevit 04:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. The pop references are kind of cool, though. Ditto BD's assessment. - Lucky 6.9 04:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing worth merging. Megan1967 10:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect The pop refernces don't need to be merged IMO. But this is the opening line of the speech and someone might search for it this way. Dsmdgold 13:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gettysburg address. Many people know the first line of this speech, and may search with it so the title is at least useful. Sjakkalle 13:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gettysburg address. The pop culture references aren't worth merging. Dave the Red (talk) 18:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - but don't merge the pop culture trivia. Lots of characters say lots of things in lots of movies, but that doesn't make it relevant. CDC (talk) 21:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More SamuraiClintoncruft. RickK 04:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete perfectly pointless article; if "score" is considered that unknown, score in Gettysburg address should fix the problem. -- AlexR 18:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless as a redirect; four score and seven years ago is what someone's likely to search for. --Carnildo 19:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete Vegaswikian 06:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect The pop culture facts are amusing, but it shouldn't be its own article. Dr Ingel 01:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir. Redirs are cheap and useful; many city articles cite pop references, so why not the speech. Also, I don't really see what makes urban legends RE the speech more relevant than pop culture citations. Niteowlneils 04:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I dropped the pop-culture refs in the Gettysburg Address article, right after the urban legends. Fits nicely there. -- 8^D ^gab 00:17, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Television and movie parodies of historical events, whether they be "Bill and Ted" or "Monty Python" or "South Park," etc. do not belong within the legitimate article that they parody. Such examples of jokes and humor made long after the historical event are not relevant to the history itself. Instead, I suggest that a link be provided within the "Bill and Ted" article directed to the "Gettysburg Address" article in case readers want to learn the true facts behind that humorous line from the movie. Bart 02:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete and make redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can't Sleep, Clowns Will Eat Me

Source material. Probable copyvio. Delete. --cesarb 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bart Simpson. (Wow, this is an actual song?) android↔talk 03:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I believe Alice Cooper got the idea from the Simpsons episode. It's been explained on WP:UA. Delete as a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 04:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Can't sleep, clown'll eat me which already mentions the Alice Cooper song. Jonathunder 05:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation, cruft. Megan1967 10:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyrighted lyrics, and re-create as Redirect to Can't sleep, clown'll eat me, just like the other variously punctuated and capitalized versions of this phrase. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Dsmdgold 22:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. --Carnildo 22:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as above. Zechenia
• Delete --Spinboy 19:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. Postdlf 21:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as Wikipedic shortcut to external song lyrics. --SuperDude 04:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge (to somewhere I don't know) or keep. ugen64 20:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Railway missing links

Just copy of a press release from the UN, with wikilinks to some people involed, would be better situated at Wikinews as Wikipedia is not a news site. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it cites the UN, but comes from a news agency. Smells like copyvio, if anything, but I'm not an expert on the status. I'm trying to think of somewhere where this relevant info can be merged, rail transport in Africa (following the convention of Rail transport in Australia and similar articles), perhaps? In any case, no need to redirect as this name is useless. --Dmcdevit 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Birthday angels 365 and Birthday characters 365

I'm listing these in one nomination because they are related. The author's vanity page was nominated for deletion and deleted some time ago; these two pages contain his "published" works. The birthday angels/characters are not notable, and these are self-promotional pages, well-intentioned as they may have been, and should be Deleted. android↔talk 03:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as self-promotion/advertising. Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, advert/promo. Megan1967 11:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. original research. Mikkalai 12:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 22:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment this work is known within the flash artists circle in China; however, it is definitely not notable in the US. Maow1982 23:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WDRQ

A self described, within article, advert and fan cruft piece for, as it looks, "defunct" Detroit radio station, gives no history, no background, nothing pertaintant, other then the writers statement "this article is intended to solidify its place in Detroit's history.". --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup and keep - Article was created by a green newcomer, who isn't yet entirely familiar with our standards. The article has two articles that link to it already, and it can be salvaged. Let's try not to bite newcomers. – ClockworkSoul 04:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wouldn't say that's biting the newcomer - it's a neutral and accurate assessment of the article as written. No vote yet. -- 8^D ^gab 04:05, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Oh, no - I didn't mean to say it was! (Sorry if it sounded that way). Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt though, and see what happens. – ClockworkSoul 04:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Most newly created, somewhat obscure articles that seem non-notable don't already have links to them, which, I think, means this one has potential. Is that logo fair use, what's the policy for logos? --Dmcdevit 04:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Logos are okay. I just went and threw a Template:logo tag on it ("It is believed that logos may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law."). – ClockworkSoul 04:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh... Thanks. I should really get to know these things... --Dmcdevit 05:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair use for our limited purpose of demonstrating what the logo of the station was. The law of fair use permits displays of copyrighted material so long as it for a primarily non-profit purpose (obviously this is), is primarily for an educational or research related purpose (both apply to us), has a minimal impact on the market for the copied material (what market?), and so long as no more of the copyrighted material is used than is necessary to fulfill the needs of the education or research at hand (for a logo, you really can't use less than the whole thing). My opinion is that we're safe. -- 8^D ^gab 05:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep All licensced radio stations are notable. Klonimus 07:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promo, stationcruft. Megan1967 11:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to whatever the callsign is for the station that replaced it. I'm presuming they didn't tear down the building and put up a new station, this seems to be just a name change, just like it was called "The Light FM" before it was called WDRQ. --bainer 12:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 14:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. So what do you guys think? I cleaned it up a bit, so is it ok now? Dirkbike 23:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, in reference to bainer's comment, maybe Wikipedia needs a history of FCC licensed AM and FM frequencies. This would make it much easier for people to track who broadcasted over what channels. Dirkbike 23:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Format changes are common enough, but this one reads like the change at KMET. At a major market, yet. - Lucky 6.9 06:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Major market radio station seems notable enough, Dmcdevit makes a good point also. Rx StrangeLove 03:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment When do these things get resolved? - Dirkbike 03:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decedent

Dic-def. This article has already been transwiki'd to the Wiktionary. I'm not sure if this can be expanded or not. --Asriel86 05:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Could be merged and redirected to inheritance or estate (or somewhere else more appropriate I can't think of) though I'm not sure of the merit of a redirect. --Dmcdevit 05:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. 132.205.45.110 19:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It already was, now it's either delete or keep & expand. --Asriel86 20:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Or redirect per my suggestion above. --Dmcdevit 21:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Decedent does not exist. 132.205.45.148 19:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Weird, it says on the Talk page that it was transwikid. Maybe it was deleted from the wiktionary? --Asriel86 19:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In the wiktionary transwiki queue here--probably eligible for speedy. Second choice, redir per Dmcdevit. Niteowlneils 04:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 22:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Noriega

Delete as vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 05:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Page is blank. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already speedied once. -- Scott e^iπ 05:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I've speedied it again for being unencyclopedic and uninformative recreated vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Winceyette

• Spoof/Goof. Delete. Mwanner 17:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irrelevant. --Onlyemarie 17:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 20:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Hofs World Famous Bunnyranch

The official name is Moonlight Bunny Ranch or Bunny Ranch depending on the source. An article with the name Moonlight bunny ranch was created today. The old article does not have a NPOV and likely has factual errors. The History items that appear to be valid were copied to the new article. Vegaswikian 05:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC

I modified the headlines to ==='s so as to mesh with standard practice. --Asriel86 06:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect or move to correct title as named above. Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I decided to go here for the delete since there were no links to that page. The title seems to be in the vanity class. Vegaswikian 16:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge' anything with NPOV that might be useful into Moonlight Bunny Ranch and make this a redirect. However, this title is misspelled because it should be "Dennis Hof's" not "Hofs".23skidoo 22:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 19:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh My Gods!

A webcomic; Alexa gives a ranking of 247,349. Nominated for speedy delete on the basis of advertising, but it's certainly not speedy material, and I'd contend it's not really advertising either, just too obscure to get an article. Meelar (talk) 05:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep While not famous, I think this one . Wikipedia describes numerous webcomics; Snail Dust has an Alexa rank of 383,589 and probably isn't seen in print like Oh My Gods! is at least occasionally DDerby 05:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was basing this off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines, which specifies that Alexa rank < 200k. Personally, I'd be more inclined to nominate Snail Dust than keep this, but reasonable people can differ. Best, Meelar (talk) 06:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure if I can vote, due to it being my article and all, but I go with keep. --Shivian Balaris 06:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at the List_of_web_comics article I see many MANY just like this one. All apparently rife for deletion. If, in creating the article on Oh My Gods! any Policies were directly broken, can those be discussed within the Talk:Oh My Gods! section of said article, instead of merely point-clicking to get rid of it entirely? --Shivian Balaris 06:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, the Alexa rank put it in a grey area IMO. I'm more concerned with excessive "advertising links" than the article existing. —Ashley Y 08:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep not famous, but ranks higher that other articles that we haven't deleted. Oliver Keenan 09:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the Alexa rank criteria is only a guideline after all. The article is interesting enough and the comic has been going quite a long time. Just make sure there's no advertising and that it is from a NPOV. -- Lochaber 09:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've never read it, but have heard of it. Shimmin 12:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but trim the number of links down.--Matteh (talk) 12:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic and informative article. Alexa is not a useful indicator of importance. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 15:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic and informative.--Onlyemarie 15:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Meets the WikiProject Webcomics guidelines in number of strips -- it seems to have several hundred -- but doesn't meet the guidelines for Alexa rank. However, once you get below the top 1000 or so, Alexa rank starts to get much less meaningful. --Carnildo 22:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Spinboy 19:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This a very informative article. The comic itself has a steady fanbase that has constant growth. Why delete an article like this?

• Keep, informative article, funny comic, deserves an entry. If this goes, then every other webcomic article should too. All in the interest of fairness, of course.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevada Museum of Art

Nominated as speedy, but clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion, so I moved it here. No vote from me--do we have a policy regarding museums? The institution clearly exists, and gets 13,600 Google hits (compare 500,000 for "Art Institute of Chicago", 166,000 for "Los Angeles County Museum of Art"). Meelar (talk) 05:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The quality of the official web site and the design of the building should be reason enought. Reno only has 180,000 residents how many in LA and Chicago? Does using Google hits mean that small towns will never get something like a museum on wikipedia? Vegaswikian 06:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, I'm asking you guys. ;) I only moved the thing from speedy deletion. Meelar (talk) 06:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK. In looking at that article I searched on the AAM and found a couple of other wikipedia entries that had that. Those articles are not much different in size to the NMA. So, if NMA goes then you could make the same case for a lot of other museums. Vegaswikian 07:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Personally I thought the over-widgeted, overdesigned, glitzy web page was worth nominating for web pages that suck. I actually had trouble finding things on it. It uses the "mystery meat" technique of not showing what your choices are until you choose them. But, hey, I won't hold that against it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable museam. Klonimus 07:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like it's a notable enough museum. --bainer 07:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, practically all full-size museums, colosseums, and arboretums are notable/interesting enough for an unlimited encyclopedia. Kappa 08:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It being "the only American Association of Museums (AAM) accredited Art Museum in the state of Nevada." makes it notable in my book. Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it seems important Saopaulo1 09:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. N-Man^talk 15:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think I've ever voted keep before. It feels weird.--Bucephalus 16:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Feels good, don't it?  :) Keep current article. Original listing was little more than link spam. - Lucky 6.9 16:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Vegaswikian has already started expanding this article. Can this be removed from VfD? - Lucky 6.9 18:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a substantial not-so-terribly-little museum. And unlike some other things I won't mention, art museums are very different from each other. Peeking at the website... oh, I'm so tempted to say something snarky about Maxfield Parrish but in fact if I were there I'd sorta like to see that exhibit. And an exhibit on pinhole photography sounds interesting. I am quite sure I wouldn't find exhibits on either of those at the Peabody-Essex Museum in Salem, nor the Elvehjem Museum of Art in Madison. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason to delete this valid museum. RickK 05:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was BJAODN. – ABCD 23:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:New York conspiracy theory

Yes, that's right - a talk page, and one with no article. It's also silly to the point of being pathetic, IMHO. Grutness|^hello? 06:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hah. That's funny. --Asriel86 06:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, you wouldn't believe it until you see it. --bainer 06:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Conspiracy is non-notable. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this true??? Lectonar 08:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, bordering on nonsense. Megan1967
• Orphaned talk pages can usually be Speedied. android↔talk 12:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • This occurred to me, too. But from reading what it actually says, and from checking the deletion log for New York conspiracy theory, it appears that this isn't an orphaned talk page. It's an article page that has been erroneously, and somewhat bizarrely, created as a talk page. Uncle G 13:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete, almost tempted to vote a BJAODN on this, but not really funny enough. Jokes there should be good ones. (Yes I know the "B" stands for "Bad") Sjakkalle 13:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. For a one liner, it's pretty badly funny - in combination with the fact that it's a talk page w/no article, I'd say it qualifies for BJAODN.-- 8^D ^gab 18:39, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• This article is grammatically incorrect, presupposes the rather odd idea that a city is a sentient entity, and (both by its title and its content) presents something as a conspiracy theory when it would (the other problems aside) be simply an ordinary opinion. Delete. Uncle G 13:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• BJAODN. It made me laugh. Dave the Red (talk) 18:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe I'm just being uptight, but I think it's kinda lame. Linuxbeak 21:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no BJAODN. Uncle G's comments are valid. This one-liner set off my lameness filter, not my laughter. I'm almost tempted to write an article about how (even 250 miles away upstate) some reporters think we all are fans of the Yankees or Mets, whichever one is winning at the time. But that's not encyclopedic either. Barno 02:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Could have been speedied as patent nonsense, but doesn't deserve BJAODN. RickK 05:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN How long did this talk page survive before being caught? If it was an article page, it would've been deleted in less than a day. - 69.216.232.184 00:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You might want to look at these too. - 69.216.232.184 00:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Talk:Single-vowel alphabet
    • Talk:Derek Cheater
• BJAODN - 68.72.118.244 21:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN --cesarb 17:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Got a nice little laugh out of this one. --Idont Havaname 03:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the one line of content was on the article page, it would either qualify as original research or patent nonsense. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Instant vision of that New Yorker cover. Plus really funny to anyone who's ever been to Plattsburgh. --Mothperson 16:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - 68.72.114.32 21:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahh! Sockpuppet! Die! Pain! Horror! Nastiness! No vote. ugen64 04:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Psychiere Comics

it seems like a vanity comic book label, of the creator

• Delete - Stoph 01:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This VfD didn't make it to the main page. No vote. Xezbeth 07:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed it now, I think. - Stoph 00:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All three hits are Vfd and Vfd mirrors. Also Delete The Impaler, the only article linking to it--"Damien The Impaler" comic -vlad gets zero hits. Niteowlneils 04:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Georgian version of Saturday Night Live

I check out the website for the tv station and there's no listing fot this show. Also why is the title in English? I doubt the country of Georgia has national shows in English. Saopaulo1 07:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 11:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. There was no listing of the show so I doubt that it's real, but it's kinda hard to totally sure. Having a title in English isn't that strange. There are several Swedish shows with English titles, mostly shows based on English ones. Jeltz talk 20:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xerodefect

Xerodefect is a Studios and a Clan. Xerodefect. Studios as a Coding Team.

Xerodefect seems to be the name of clan, rather than something worthy of a wikipedia article. This is evidenced by a google search that has just 46 hits 1. Oliver Keenan 08:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for reasons above. Oliver Keenan 08:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Mikkalai 12:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, vanity, not notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. ugen64 20:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pizza Hot Dogs

Wikipedia is not a recipe book DDerby 09:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No it's not, but ISTR some other Wiki is. Transwiki to that. — JIP | Talk 09:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks:Cookbook:Recipes Uncle G 09:46, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Megan1967 11:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Just a recipe. Not a culturally significant dish. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as above, no WP-relevant significance. Barno 02:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ... and probably even worse for human consumption than Sprite. Barno 02:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sprite is no worse than other soft drinks. Transwiki. Brendan62442 18:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all food is notable for a truly great encyclopædia.

Grue is the name of a high protein oatmeal-based concoction used in Arkansan prisons for punishment rations- edible and nourishing, but revolting.

Grue was also at the center of a 1970s Supreme Court case -- prisoners claimed the food was unconstitutionally bad, and the court agreed that the grue-serving prison was violating the 8th amendment, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It is mentioned in an NPR article on a currently suspect prison dish "the loaf." Grue 19:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep and transwiki too please Yuckfoo 01:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 20:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hardworking families

A substub and dicdef that Refers to a phrase being used in the current UK general election. No potential to become encyclopaedic and it's difficult to think of anything more that can be said about it. Dbiv 10:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • The article has changed substantially since I wrote this (I note it includes a brief description I wrote here but never intended to be in the article itself), but as said below it is now veering strongly in the direction of original research. It also has something of a POV problem, not in that it takes a somewhat cynical view of political discourse. I wonder if a home can be found for a slightly refactored version, for example in Rhetoric or some similar article? But I'm afraid I can't justify withdrawing the VFD. A political phrase is only worthy of a separate article if it has a particular resonance and identity with a policy (eg 'New Deal'), and this phrase is precisely aimed at not doing that. Dbiv 21:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) See below. Dbiv 23:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with CM (reluctantly) - an article on the new meaning of 'dog whistle' :-( might be more likely to stay the course though.Linuxlad 14:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree that it lacks potential to go anywhere. Charles Matthews 11:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For one thing, families are not employed, mostly, but individuals. I'm not uninterested in the rhetoric, but it's such a can of worms I don't think we can have a sensible page on it alone.Charles Matthews
• Refactor: I created the article because I did not understand what the phrase meant (the semantic face-value is mysterious) but it seemed to be used very frequently by both Labour and Conservative politicians. At least it should be merged into the article code word (propaganda) or UK general election, 2005. – Kaihsu 11:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Keep: Thanks for people being considerate. I think this would be a viable NPOV article to keep if we could find from Lexis-Nexis, the Hansard, etc. examples of use, first usage, etc. It is not a mere dictionary entry as the semantic value is not the pragmatic value. – Kaihsu 09:49, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic phrase. Mikkalai 12:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is an important codeword in current right wing politics (See Dbiv's comment below). This is the british equivalent of "Hardworking Americans" who deserve a tax cut. Personally I favor policies that would benefit chavs at the expense of Hardworking Families. Klonimus 06:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Question: does this mean anything different from "families which are hardworking"? Kappa 21:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, not in principle, no. But in the UK election it's being used as a code: the parties all want to lower taxes and provide services for "hardworking families", by which they mean to include everyone who might vote for them but exclude feckless benefit recipients (right-wing use) or those who have unearned income (left-wing use). Which is what I suspect Kaihsu was trying to say, but I think it has extremely limited value as a separate page. Dbiv 21:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, POV phrase. Megan1967 07:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 08:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) Abstain per discussion below. Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, alternately merge and redirect to newspeak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I really appreciate the job Kaihsu done with the new version of the article. But what he did is a brilliant example of original research, to supporthis point of view that the expression in question is interpreted differently by different societies/parties/whatever. What is still lacking is secondary sources, i.e., respectful researchers (no disrespect to Kaishu) who described of this phenomenon in authoritative sources. Also, so far the article is a mostly about the usage of the term, i.e., more in the dicdef section. Clearly, its actual meaning "families that work hard" depends on what different people mean when they say "work hard". A buglar works hard. Sometimes.

So, who else besides kaishu and other wikipedians noticed and described the notoriety of the term? Mikkalai 15:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, original research is still one argument against this article, though I did little more than searching on existing databases and the web. I still think the article is useful and encyclopedic. If this article gets deleted in the end, I shall seek to publish my contribution elsewhere, perhaps with my existing dual-licensing. Cheers for your considered arguments. – Kaihsu 15:27, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I agree the article is useful. But the notability of a thing must be established prior to the publication in wikipedia, rather than in wikipedia. Also, when publishing elsewhere, please keep in mind that not all people have the same understanding which sources are authoritative to be counted here (just like with "workharding families" :-) Mikkalai 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I looked to see what rhetorical device this would be classified as, and found that we didn't cover this in anything listed under rhetoric. However, rhetoric does not link to the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, which in turn fails to link to glittering generality. And with that knowledge to hand, both problems here are solved. This phrase is an example of a glittering generality, so we know how to treat it, and the IPA's article on Glittering Generalities is one good secondary source dealing with this phenomenon, ameliorating the secondary source issue to an extent. So I suggest a merger of some kind, with some refactoring, to glittering generality. Note that this phrase is not an example of a code word (figure of speech), because it doesn't meet the definition of "code word" given. The definition of glittering generality fits far better. Uncle G 17:14, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Since we are at it, glittering generality has no category assigned. Will it fit into the Category:Rhetoric or Category:Figures of speech? Mikkalai 17:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Now it is on Indymedia. I would support a refactor-merge with glittering generality if folk feel that is better. Cheers for the kind considerations from all of you. – Kaihsu 18:00, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Modified article. I've done some refactoring in place, as if this were a section within glittering generality. See what you think. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
    • Good work. I now say Merge and redirect. Dbiv 23:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real concept, deletionism needs deleted. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a "concept", i.e., an abstract notion, and we are speaking about a particular article that describes this concept. The unanswered question is: besides the usage of the word, in what critical works it has been analyzed? Wikipedia cannot be the first one. Small town is a real concept, with very specific problems. There are tens of thousands other two-word phrases about "real concepts". Show me the book, please, and the article is a go. Mikkalai 15:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • [2]. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sam, thank you. I know how to use internet. The reference you gave is a usage of the term, not its scientific/encyclopedic discussion. Mikkalai 15:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No. That's simply yet one more use of the glittering generality. Nothing in that series of television programmes purports to describe the concept of "hardworking families". Instead they describe foster care, adoption, child support, and the like, and use the glittering generality to attempt to gain widespread appeal and to imply that this is positive action for the benefit of those who inarguably deserve it. This is why a redirect from the phrase to an article about such phrases in political discourse of which this is but one example is I think the best approach. It solves the problem of people in Kaihsu's shoes. Such people come to the encyclopaedia not knowing what a "hardworking family" is, and the encyclopaedia tells them that there is no definite meaning to the term, but instead shows them that politics has a long history of such deliberately vague terms (or, at least, a history that goes back at least as far as the 1940s, when the Institute for Propaganda Analysis analysed these things) to which politicians expect the audience to ascribe their own meanings. They may not have been instructed in the way that they expected to be, but they've been instructed. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
        • G, this is yet another, example of brilliant, but original research (and please don't poke me with this kaishu's indymedia contribution: there is no peer review at this site. Otherwise everyone could have been publish any bull in wikipedia by submitting at indymedia or elsewhere first). I still don't have the question answered: who and where (besides kaishu) critically discussed this term? Mikkalai 17:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • The problem here is secondary sources. But it's a limited problem. We don't have a problem with the concept of glittering generalities; we have the Institute for Propaganda Analysis as at least one source for that. We don't have a problem with all of the quotations mentioning "hardworking families"; we (presuming the external hyperlinks to be correct) have full references for those. The core of the problem, the only part that remains, is whether anyone has considered the phrase "hardworking families" in terms of its propaganda value apart from us:
            • We certainly have plenty of evidence for its use, particularly in political strategy documents where politicians prescribe the propaganda that their party members should use.
            • We have uses of "hardworking", by itself, by people whose job was explicitly Minister of Propaganda.
            • We have sites such as this one that analyse statements containing such phrases as propaganda.
            • We also have sites such as this one that analyse Nazi propaganda and that use the word "hardworking" as an example ("Using the Preemptive Strike doctrine, the Nazi propaganda machine actually managed to convince ordinary Germans that the National Socialist government was invading other countries and laying waste to their cities in defense of Nazi Germany. It all read like a quaint little story: the racially inferior, parasitic, uncivilized, disheveled, excitable brute was out to kill pure, God fearing, hardworking Germans.")
            • And finally (I've just turned this up.), we have "Summary of Politics: The Art of Bamboozling" which says "Another red herring is argumentum ad populum, also know as stroking. This is when a politician will compliment the people, such as "hardworking ...". (This mid-term paper is flawed. I suspect deliberately so, as a copyright trap. The spelling errors are probably deliberate, and the mis-labelling of this as Argumentum ad populum is probably deliberate also. But that's beside the point here, which is that someone has addressed this word as a propaganda word.)
          • Without the last, I would have said that it was borderline and circumstantial. With the last, we have confirmation that "hardworking" has been discussed as a propaganda word by others, albeit that "hardworking families", specifically, may not have been. (It's a pity that "pay money to see the rest" cuts in at exactly the point that it does. ☺) So the question is: Is the adjective enough? Uncle G 13:30, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting and encyclopædic. Grue 19:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge per Uncle G Kappa 19:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am going ahead with the merge. – Kaihsu 08:57, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radioukacz

• del. non-english and possibly non-existing word. A piece of trivia which is well enough to be covered in its parent article, Words hardest to translate, which itself smacks pov and promo, on the bring of VfD itself. Mikkalai 11:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, how many other non-english words exist in Wiki? Making it a separate entry makes it easier to find by a casual Wiki user. --Roo72 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Many, if they are really used in English to refer to some things that don't have precise English equivalent. But there is no reason to keep a word, which is someone's typo and popularized by a nonnotable translation company out of their own silliness. Mikkalai 22:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Carnildo 22:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best, a Wiktionary entry. RickK 05:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The content is already in Words hardest to translate, which is itself a mess. - Mustafaa 06:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is more, the correspoinding page at "Today Translations" website now gives the spelling "radiostukach", probably after reading wikipedia talk pages Talk:Radioukacz and Talk:Words hardest to translate. (The mentioned TT subpage is moving around. If you don't find it, start from the TT home page and into the "news" section). Mikkalai 17:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lot 1

Nonnotable local strip mall or something. Delete. Jonathan Christensen 12:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. Oliver Keenan 12:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails to establish notability. --Halidecyphon 17:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, mallcruft. Megan1967 07:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isle Delfino

gamecruft. This imaginary isle, while it may feature prominently in the game Super Mario Sunshine, is already noted in the text of that article, and certainly does not need its own. Delete. Jonathan Christensen 12:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. Oliver Keenan 12:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Super Mario Sunshine will discourage recreation. Sjakkalle 12:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect — RJH 16:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, mariocruft. Megan1967 07:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Sjakkalle. Shimmin 11:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redir to reduce chances of re-creation. Niteowlneils 04:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amistad KOG

This is simply not an appropriate encyclopedia topic, especially the list of students in the classes! It falls somewhere between "No potential to become encyclopedic" and a "Vanity page" with a hint of "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" thrown in. Mwanner 12:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I hesitate to do so because it would be a shame if "Jennifer something" and "Johanna something" (sic) were unable to find their names in WIkipedia, but it has to be done. Ground Zero 13:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps an inclusionist will argue that a better article could be written under this title, but not me. This particular article is snarky POV about the program. And listing elementary-age children by name seems like a significant violation of their privacy. FreplySpang (talk) 13:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We can't have an article for everything. It's a waste of space, and the faster we get rid of this sort of thing the less often it will pop up. --ROY YOЯ 17:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notatable to the point of triviality. After digging through the history I notice that this was written by Steve Geluso, who was in the class 1999, so this is vanity. Mr. Geluso seems to have not liked being inthis program. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Have we now gotten to the point where we want to keep individual classes of individual years of individual elementary schools? Let us please hope not. RickK 05:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although it would make a good subtopic for Amistad Elementry School. Klonimus 06:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress: Its Law and Cause

Essayistic, copy-paste from an unverified source. (nomination is by Oliverkeenan)

• Delete for reasons afforementioned. Oliver Keenan 13:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is an excerpt from some old textbook on evolution, old enough for copyrights to have expired I think. But not an article, and title is not good enough for a redirect. Sjakkalle 13:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto. Mwanner 13:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Herbert Spencer is an important thinker, positively seminal in some respects, and this was the title of an important article of his, marking a stage in the consolidation of his ideas in the late 1850s. Not problem with copyvio given the age, but I agree its unencyclopedic just to give a huge block of that article. Instead, there should be a paraphrase of the article, along with an explanation of its context in terms of English history and Spencer's biography. Clean-up, in other words, not deletion. --Christofurio 02:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) (Am I a hopeless inclusionist yet)?

It's a copyvio, as was clearly stated at the bottom of the page. RickK 05:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that the head and foot of the article is a copyvio, the middle of the text is an excerpt from a 19th century textbook. Have not copyrights expired by then? Sjakkalle 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Copyright lasts 95 year in most cases. So yes, most things from before 1920 is safe (because the term used to be 75 years, and did not retroactively extend). But anyway, this is not encyclopedic, so delete. Radiant_* 08:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 rewrite. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Blue Train

A personal book review, and not an article. I am too tired to try to turn this into an article, but if anyone wants to, I will reconsider~after a rewrite. Sjakkalle 13:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have, with some doubts, decided to withdraw my nomination and vote keep on the rewritten stub article. It is a bit short but it can be expanded. Sjakkalle 06:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Mwanner 13:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV book review. Mgm|^(talk) 18:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect might work. 131.211.210.12 08:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was me. I hate it when my PC logs out... Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Agatha Christie. I don't see any useful material in this article, but if anyone does it can be merged. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment New stub contains useful material, nice work, but it should be merged into the Agatha Christie article. There's plenty of room. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Agatha Christie. Nothing to merge. --Carnildo 22:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment on the votes to redirect. I usually like redirects, but the Agatha Christie article has links to every single crime novel she made. Is it not better that the links to articles which we do not have remain red, so that we avoid having redirects to itself? I can imagine readers of the Agatha Christie article getting annoyed if they click The Mystery of the Blue Train only to find themselves at the top of the article they were just reading. Sjakkalle 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's all sort of academic, since the Agatha Christie article says nothing specific about this novel. Still, it's just barely possible that someone might see the title, look it up, and be pleased to find the author, so there's some justification for a redirect. Particularly since a) the global search feature keeps appearing and disappearing, I think it's been available less than 1/3 of the time I've been on Wikipedia, and b) the Google and Yahoo search features aren't terribly reliable. I do not approve of automatically linking every novel in an article about an author, because it encourages creation of substubs. I think it's much better to leave them unlinked in the article, add brief notes to each title, and create whole articles only when it's clear that the quantity of material about the book is too large for the article. So personally I'd unlink all the book titles that do not have articles already. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think that it is better if it is redlinked than if it is redirected. Jeltz talk 13:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to keep after it was remade into a book stub. Jeltz talk 10:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I just trimmed and rewrote it into what I believe to be a properly encyclopedic stub article. Bryan 05:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, now that it's not a book review but a stub. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:01, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the stub. Xezbeth 10:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UPX

Advertising-- Check External links. Mwanner 13:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- UPX is a very well known open source project, anybody familiar with computer security, forensics, or reverse engineering will have heard of it. -- taviso 13:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it does read like an ad. Is there anything interesting we can say about this compression program? If not I'd prefer to have it merged to a comprehensive list. Radiant_* 14:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notabple software. N-Man^talk 15:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as a programmer, I've heard of (and used) this software. It's quite well known in the programming community. We have entries for notable open source projects like gcc, emacs, and GIMP, so precedent would seem to argue for keeping the article. It should be cleaned up and expanded. Firebug 16:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well-known bit of software, but if this is all we can say about it, it's no better than any of the other adspam we see. Chris talk back 22:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clean up and expand. Megan1967 07:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Given the number of computer programmers who contribute here, I predict this will grow rather quickly. - Lucky 6.9 05:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Velvet Razor" Rock music

Band vanity. Delete. Geldart 13:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as link spam. Poorly titled link spam, I might add. - Lucky 6.9 16:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete You don't often see self promotion here as blatant as this. Dsmdgold 19:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Band vanity, plus any article that states "Are Velvet Razor the best rock band ever" is not encyclapedic.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Order of the Stick

Merged with The Order of the Stick Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So replace it with a redirect there; this doesn't require VfD. Radiant_* 13:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• You are so right, and I am so sleepy.Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 20:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ray Gun (movie)

A movie which may not come out. I am not sure whether or not to cite "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", because "may not come out" doesn't really predict anything, but delete in any case. Sjakkalle 14:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment of the rewrite. My vote remains delete, but now I can certainly cite the "Crystal ball"-rule. But the rewrite is better than the article I originally nominated. Sjakkalle 06:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's mentioned on the Internet, so its past the rumor mill. Anyway, I just rewrote the incredibly poor stub. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's on the internet therefore it's not a rumor? Are you sure that's sound? IMHO, Delete per crystal ball clause. Radiant_* 08:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect with redundant existing content on Pixar page, at least until it is firmed up. — RJH 15:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree with Frecklefoot. Internet is the place where many rumours are actually started. Merge with Pixar or mentioned director until it's officially confirmed it'll be made. Mgm|^(talk) 18:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pixar for now. If the movie ever gets made, it can be broken out as its own article again. Dave the Red (talk) 03:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation. RickK 05:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pixar. If and when the movie is finally released this shouldn't be a seperate article until then. Megan1967 07:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect for now. Should the rumors, etc prove true, it can be easily rewritten with the pertinent information. — THOR 14:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Majority Choice Approval

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

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

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 20:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An Introduction to J2ME

Page too long and conteet is in style of wikibooks rather than enclyopedia entry. Page added to wikibooks as article for book titled J2ME

Shareme 14:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I am org author and markign this for deletion, Page is not wikipedia entry style but wikibook style. page moved to wikibook J2ME Shareme 14:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • If the author requests deletion, this qualifies for speedy deletion, so I have tagged it as such. Chris talk back 22:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't qualify, see "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author." Besides, this should just be merged to J2ME, since there's surely some useful info here. Redirect probably not necessary. --Dmcdevit 22:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever is decided here, (and I personally recommend merging to J2ME) should probably be aplied to the other similar articles created by Shareme: Overview_of_MIDP1, An_Introduction_to_Java_Virtual_Machines_in_MIDP, MIDlet_Preverify, which were all transwikied. They could probably all have the usable info merged to the better article name. --Dmcdevit 04:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with J2ME. Megan1967 07:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

McWorld

• Rewrite for NPOV. McWorld refers to the homogenizing effect of globalization; but I think this is different that McDonaldization, which refers to the way modern culture is resembling the nature of Speedy Service System Robbyslaughter 23:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge with McDonaldization. The rex 14:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strong POV. Interesting term, but is it encyclopaedic? Could perhaps be turned into an interesting article, but this isn't a good start. Delete Geldart 14:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite for NPOV. It's true that McDonald's's critics have said things like this, but it's not universal, objective fact. — JIP | Talk 14:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - the page has been significantly rewritten subsequent to this vote. I would read a vote to rewrite as a conditional keep (certainly not the equivalent of a vote to delete, merge, or redirect) and would argue that in this case, the condition is a good way towards being fulfilled. -- 8^D ^gab 03:45, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Redirect to McDonalds. Currently hopelessly NPOV. If I remember right, "McWorld" was one of McDonalds' official advertising campaigns in the US, hence the redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anti-globalization. In the meantime, I have cleaned up some of the more blatant POVs in this article (though it isn't perfect). Issues like this one are bound to be contentious. Firebug 16:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's a famous book[3] called "Jihad vs. McWorld" that describes commercialization as one of the two great clashing forces of the 21st century. Also, the term gets over a billion google hits. Just kidding - but still, it gets 61,000. -- 8^D ^gab 16:12, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep, anything which gets two "redirect" votes in opposite directions needs to be a disambig page at least. Kappa 20:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as an explanation of the concept (and maybe as a disambig). - Marcika 23:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to McDonalds. The term was once used by them. Megan1967 07:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and add a side of fries and coke. Important slogan on the hippie left. Klonimus 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If it's kept in any form, merge it with Mcdonaldization; we don't need two articles. Gazpacho 08:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete commie propaganda. Grue 19:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've tried to neutralize the article a little bit. Not sure if it was enough. As for now, I'd Keep and consider further and substantial revision. The concept is worthy enough. GeeZee 23:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but don't merge with Mcdonaldization, it's a slightly different term. SeventyThree 00:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Myles Long 20:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --204.210.200.251 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shaun Smith

This page is clearly a candidate for deletion due to its non-encyclopedic tone and vanity subject matter. A search for "Shaun Smith" + "Athena" yielded only 22 hits. --Onlyemarie 15:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the line "Some have described him as a "total toss bag"" suggests either an attack page or self-deprecating vanity, not a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity doesn't get any more obvious. Chris talk back 22:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless that "WikiPeople" idea that keeps getting kicked around becomes a reality before this VfD expires. In that case, I guess we could transwiki it there... sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami Relief

Does this group exist? The external link on the article doesn't work any more (I have removed it) - only the link to the hosted store, which has no supporting info for its claim that the money goes to help. The name is so generic that Google searches aren't helpful. - DavidWBrooks 16:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The link is to a CafePress site (online store where anyone can post merchandise) and that seems to reenforce it's non-notability, not to mention disambiguation problems with actual tsunami relief efforts. --Onlyemarie 16:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, official relief efforts don't use Cafepress. Mgm|^(talk) 18:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless much better evidence of reality, notability, and authenticity is provided, such as major press coverage, listing by organizations that rate charities, etc. Unpleasantly reminiscent of QuakeAID. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've nowikied the outside link. Kappa 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn tsunamicruft. ComCat 06:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, smells strongly of scam. A real charity would have a domain or at the very least a listing on some credible source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 20:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ginsu

Advert. As it says its "from the Press Release." Delete. Mwanner 17:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC). (note: copyvio version deleted.--Duk 06:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• I've tagged and bagged it as a copyvio. Delete one way or another. Notable subject, though. - Lucky 6.9 18:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and make encyclopedic. Ginsu Knives are notable. Klonimus 18:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yeah, what Klonimus said. They slice! They dice! They even julienne! FreplySpang (talk) 19:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) I agree that the copyvio should be dealt with. But you can't fry a copyvio on a diamond ring! Oops, wrong infomercial. FreplySpang (talk) 20:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Watch as these amazing knives cut through an aluminum soda can !!! Klonimus 00:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but this has to be deleted first to get it out of the edit history. I may tackle this one myself at the temp page but if someone else gets the urge, dig in. NOW how much would you pay? - Lucky 6.9 19:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment An incredible bargain for only four easy payments of 19.95!!! Operators are standing by! Klonimus 00:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio, but keep any redlinks. Chris talk back 22:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite as needed. BTW if it is indeed copied from a press release, to my knowledge that does not constitute a copyvio as such material is intended (in theory) to be reprinted verbatim pretty much anywhere. If it comes from an actual copyrighted source, then that's a different matter.23skidoo 22:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Don't answer, because if you call in the next ten minutes, we'll throw in the amazing Ronco Yak Milker absolutely free! I sense a BJAODN coming on... - Lucky 6.9 00:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't you tell the VfD audience more about your amazing new invention Klonimus 04:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed! You'll wonder how you ever lived without it! Yes, it's a new article at Ginsu/Temp. AMAZING LOW PRICE! - Lucky 6.9 04:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's the Quick & Easy way to eliminate copyright violations! Full GFDL warranty included. Tell me: Is it available in the shops, or can our audience get it by using the number hyperlink on their screens? (Don't forget to fix the redlink at infomercial.) What's that number, again? Uncle G 17:44, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation, advert. Megan1967 07:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (if you can call it that): That number again is "Delete, copyright violation, advert." Call now for this amazing television offer! If you're not satisfied, return the delete for a full refund but keep the Ronco Yak Milker as our gift! (Love ya, Meg. Really. I genuinely respect your voting record.) - Lucky 6.9 20:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the copyvio. Keep the nice new article at Ginsu/Temp. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the copyvio. Merge Ginsu/Temp with Ginsu knife. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Karin Stoiber

This articel was already deleted in the de.wikipedia.org - Reason: Not relevant. No services on own account. All relevant information is already in Edmund Stoiber. The user who wrote the article is banned in de.wikipedia.--Hoheit 17:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A Redirect to Edmund Stoiber won't hurt. Martg76 20:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the first ladies seem to have been an election issue. RickK 05:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Seems to be notable. Megan1967 07:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Hi folks, first a Thank you to Dmcdevit for correcting my poor english.User "Hoheit" is right - this article is banned on wikipedia.de - after a discussion with no clear result.[4]

( behalten or nicht löschen = keep ; löschen = delete ) The banned german original article you can find here on a discussion-site :[5] Note for those who speak german : The "löschen"-faction - leaded by two admins - they don´t mean the article , they say the First Lady of Bavaria is "not relevant"

It´s grotesque. Greetings MutterErde 13:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Karin Stoiber is the First Lady of Bavaria and therefore prominent, a very important person. Unfortunately the German Administrators of the famous Hamburger Wikipedia-Stammtisch „Unscheinbar“ and „Skriptor“ and their companions often make tyrannizing motions for deletion. „Unscheinbar” and „Skriptor” punishs their political opponents by means of the members of the Chatmob always with blocking- and banning-campaigns: „The user who wrote the article is banned in de.wikipedia!” They regards their political and misogynous opinion as standard. But Wikipedia needs political neutrality. --Manfred Riebe 20:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Frau Stoiber is a celebrity in Germany who regularly appears in magazines and on TV. I don't agree that she is only what she is through her husband, as one administrator argues. Linguini 22:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If she's irrelevant on German Wikipedia, she's certainly irrelevant here. A reference to her at Edmund Stoiber is sufficient. (I do like the link to the Grateful Deaf, though.) --Angr/_comhrá 05:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Bavarian First Lady. Does she like Dunkin Donuts Bavarian creme donuts? Klonimus 06:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BTW:These Donuts have nothing to do with Bavaria or Germany...
• Delete. She is only the lady at the side of her husband. Another "Scout" from Germany (gell, Mutti) 82.83.246.35 12:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gender equality: „She is only the lady at the side of her husband.” :-))

Most of the First Ladies were forgotten, if they are not married with a war criminal or with a chancellor, who took black money and so on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherie_Blair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Bush

This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. To see other versions, use the page history. Are politicians paying money, that her wives don’t registrated or were protected from editing in the German Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Braun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magda_Goebbels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannelore_Kohl

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiane_Herzog

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monika_Hohlmeier

Manfred Riebe 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but the above comment does not make sense to me. Grue 19:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sheila Brown-Halworth

first female African-American Jew of Malaysian and African ancestry to serve on a county seat in northern southwestern New Hampshire. A strange claim to fame, and does not appear on Google at all. Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, possible joke. --Henrygb 18:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Even if this woman is real (which I highly doubt), the woman is completely insignificant! "The first African-American Jew of both Malaysian and African ancestry to serve on a county seat in northern southwestern New Hampshire?" What? I could say that I'm the first middle aged man over six feet tall to father two college-bound children by the name of Sarah and Annie in 1974, that doesn't mean I'm noteworhty! Also, I want to nominate an article for deletion and can't figure out how. It's a real piece of trash called Mid Century WarThanks. History21

• Delete as hoax. I've tagged that "Mid Century War" idiocy as a speedy. It's a rambling, incoherent "future history" essay that's managed to avoid detection since March 25. - Lucky 6.9 18:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like "Mid Century War" is now past history. Good catch, History21! - Lucky 6.9 18:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, joke. I imagine the party would've been a blast though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable even if it's not a hoax. - Marcika 23:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 07:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Race by itself doesn't establish notability. And all Google results on her name are related to this VfD. This looks like a hoax to me. --Idont Havaname 03:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strange votes

• Delete Soooooooo tempting, but it's got to go. Maybe I'll be the first twenty-somethign history buff with blonde hair and blue eyes to delete a wikipedia article relating to a democratically elected African leader. User:liz1848
• Delete Completely unnotable User:bit89medieval
• Delete As if. User:Endi

  I've edited these three to link to their blank user pages rather than articles. All three look dubious and should probably not be counted. --Henrygb 23:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 20:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nizoral

The page is non-encyclopedic: it is merely directions (and unofficial ones, at that) for using a single brand of anti-dandruff shampoo. In the doubtful case that some of this material warrants inclusion, it should be rolled into shampoo or dandruff. -- Kaszeta 18:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I can't be sure, but I think I used it once. Anyway, remove ad-speak and merge with shampoo or dandruff. Both seem equally valid to merge too. Mgm|^(talk) 18:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with dandruff#Treatment after getting rid of the "apply vacuum cleaner on head" part. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:28, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Dandruff Ketoconazole. Megan1967 07:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nizoral used to be available by perscription only. All perscription drugs are notable. Nizoral is also notable for being the first anti-fungal anti-dandruff shampoo. Previous generations of AD shampoo's operated on the assumption that dandruff is caused by some sort of psoriasis-type process, not due to skin surface yeasts. All in all a very notable shampoo worthy of it's own article. Klonimus 06:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Klonimus, but remove the "how-to"/original research. Kappa 08:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)merge or keep. Kappa 19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep per Klonimus and Kappa. - Lucky 6.9 05:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as above. Grue 19:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Turn it back to a redir to the generic name Ketoconazole, like was done here, which is also a better article. Niteowlneils 04:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Niteowlneils after he pointed this out on my talk page. Changing vote to merge any useful info and redirect back to the Ketoconazole article. - Lucky 6.9 06:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to ketoconazole, mention 2% shampoo in that article, and delete illegal advice to do "despite what the bottle says". As for the vacuum cleaner: LOL. JFW | T@lk 09:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Screw the closure templates, I'm closing this with consensus to keep. --SPUI (talk) 14:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Washington State Route 900

I don't think Wikipedia should be a street directory. There are a lot of these articles. I feel all articles about roads should be deleted from Wikipedia unless of importance such as Champs-Élysées --Chammy Koala 18:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I now think that the article should be merged with other articles, such as all Washington State Routes. The articles are very short on their own, and one good article could be made from them all being together.

• Delete, non-notable road. Dave the Red (talk) 18:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a highway, not a mere street. --Lukobe 19:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep In theory, I agree that WP should not be a street directory but the reality is that there are now hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles about streets, bus stops, subway stations etc. and the WP community seems to accept them as valid. I don't see that there's anything to be gained in trying to turn the tide on this one. --Lee Hunter 19:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete being a highway (as opposed to a street) isn't necessarily encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, along with all of the other several hundred state highways in the United States. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep we have lots of road articles. N-Man^talk 21:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if we can expand it a bit. Chris talk back 22:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep state-numbered highways. --SPUI (talk) 22:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Local roads are not notable. --Carnildo 23:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The time to decide that was several years ago. Not now, AFTER all these articles have been created IN GOOD FAITH. --SPUI (talk) 23:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've written three or four California highway articles, but I tend to agree that a state highway shield doesn't always mean notability. Google "California State Highway 195" to see what I mean. It's not much more than a farm road. This one seems notable. - Lucky 6.9 01:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. What does an article like this do that isn't done far better by Yahoo Maps or Google Maps or Mapquest? How is anybody going to use an article like this? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously, try finding information like this on Mapquest. It's not as easy as it seems, especially to find ACCURATE information. Mapquest still puts US Route 1 and US 9 shields on New Jersey State Highway 139, which hasn't been US 1/9 since the mid-1930s. --SPUI (talk) 02:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• (Changed vote) Keep in present form as improved by SPUI. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the article has more content than "where it is", "what other roads it is linked to" and "how many lanes it has". Things like history, why it was built, amount of traffic, influence on the society, etc. Otherwise, delete and put somewhere on Wikicities. The article as it stands right now is not much more encyclopedic than a stub and should be expanded. --cesarb 02:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The last two paragraphs are about the history; thus this vote should be counted as a keep. --SPUI (talk) 03:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Couldn't you at least add when the road was built? --cesarb 09:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately that's nontrivial to find; I'd need some maps from the era. Not even Highways of Washington State gives a date for when it was built. --SPUI (talk) 12:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • This gives the Sunset Highway's opening as 1915, and this and this conspire to say that what's now 900 was the original routing for route 2, if I'm reading it all right. Does that work? --iMb~Meow
          • However, the Sunset Highway/PSH 2 was a long route across the entire state, and what's now SR 900 is just a small portion (most has been upgraded to or paralleled by I-90). The part on SR 900 may have been finished earlier, as a road for local use (and maybe connecting to a dirt road through the mountains). --SPUI (talk) 14:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Better now, count my vote as a keep. --cesarb 17:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, articles for roads like this are normal for Wikipedia. --iMb~Meow 03:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per the above, this kind of information isn't collected in any other one place. Meelar (talk) 05:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, anyone? Merging will make the information more usable for route-planning. Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. State highways are generally worthy of inclusion, and this one has enough content to merit such. Arkyan 09:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I began this quest for deletion, but a merge is fine, as deleting this one article wouldn't solve the problem anyway. For all you who have argued to keep, what would Wikipedia be like if it wasn't just filled with American roads/highways? How about an aritcle on the Hume Highway between Albury/Wadonga and Melbourne in Victoria, Australia? Sound interesting? If every major road in the world was added then every time someone did a random page search, guess what would come up? The only people who care about an individual road are either people who travel on it, or who are going to. They wouldn't look for it on Wikipedia in either case - they'd buy a map. I appreciate a lot of people have gone to an effort to create these articles, but the information won't be lost in a merge. You could even make it a very good article if it was.--Chammy Koala 10:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with what? List of Washington state highways would be awfully big. By the way, we have a rather nice article on the Hume Highway. --SPUI (talk) 11:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I would support all major roads being added, yes. And there's plenty of material about roads that can't be found on a map. For people interested in local history, for example, these articles are invaluable. Meelar (talk) 19:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we have lots of articles about highways (and not just U.S. ones). If we ever get any more 900-series articles, it might be worthwhile considering merging the lot into a single article. JYolkowski 19:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above. Samaritan 20:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable highway. Klonimus 06:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep state highways. -- Decumanus 03:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Keep. This ship sailed long ago. And it's not just a US thing--see Al, List of British Columbia provincial highways, List of Western Australian highways, Great Britain road numbering scheme, etc., let alone local road articles such as Queen Street and List of Toronto, Ontario roads (some of which I voted to delete as excessively granular, but obviously I was on the losing side). Merge/rediring articles destined to only be a couple paragraphs does seem prudent, however. Niteowlneils 05:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 20:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Pascal

Looks like a sample program. Not likely to be encylopedic. Vegaswikian 19:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Judging by what I know about Pascal, this program is extremely simple, likely to come up as the first-week homework of a Pascal student. — JIP | Talk 20:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's full of errors too. No Pascal compiler will accept that without at least half a dozen errors. Strong delete. — JIP | Talk 20:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I change my vote to keep after the rewrite by Uncle G. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• writeln (' delete '); Nothing worth keeping. Chris talk back 22:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• mv delete, Microsoft Pascal         Keep the re-write. # Carnildo 23:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Marcika 23:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic, bad-formated, full of errors and vanity. Sanmartin 23:18, 2005 Apr 12 (according to history Uncle G 01:24, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC))
• It's not actually about Microsoft Pascal, the software package (mentioned in Turbo Pascal). It's just a Pascal program. CStringUnlink('Microsoft Pascal') unless rewritten to be about the software package. Weak Keep. Uncle G 01:24, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, although the title is worth a stub if someone knows enough about it. Gazpacho 01:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten article. Uncle G 14:54, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Keep UncleG's rewrite. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with the rewrite. Can I withdraw my VfD as a result of these changes? Vegaswikian 18:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kappa 08:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oliver Keenan 10:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as rewritten. K1Bond007 19:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• keep is this serious? Yuckfoo 01:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The version that was submitted for VfD was someone's posting of a buggy program written in Pascal. --Carnildo 02:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewritten article. Megan1967 08:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep RustyCale 22:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nicktoons Summer Beach House

Name of an advertising campaign used for two summers on Nickelodion. I don't believe it's notable enough for even a merge. --InShaneee 19:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What the ...? Delete - fails the "more notable than a Wikipedia inclusionist" test. Chris talk back 22:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a network television program. Kappa 22:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Appearances are deceptive. It seems to be a programme strand rather an a standalone programme. Chris talk back 22:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it was a promo that lasted two years, not encyclopedic--nixie 23:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-notable marathon that lasted for two summers on nikelodeon. Dave the Red (talk) 03:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more Cartoon Vandal cruft. No, Kappa, this was not a program, it was an advertising gimmick. RickK 05:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable advert, cartooncruft. Megan1967 07:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's next, NBC Movie of the Week Promo Clip, 1975-1977? Nick at Nite Brady Bunch DVD contest, Summer 2001? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN ad. Radiant_* 08:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A promo like this is a dime a dozen. - Lucky 6.9 17:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable about this promo campaign. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Tydaj 22:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nina Vetrova/Robinson

Article shows no indication of notability. No hits on Google. Probable vanity. --Lee Hunter 19:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:06, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eric Allender

aaaack, it's an unformatted paste of his CV. Delete. (assuming that it is posted by Allender himself, therefore not a copyvio) FreplySpang (talk) 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ick. Delete vanity, and someone help me make a valid speedy for crap like this. Chris talk back 22:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable (and hard on the eyes).
• Delete vanity, non notable, non-encyclopedic, not formated. José San Martin 23:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He might be notable, but nobody could find it out with all unformatted rubbish on the article page anyway. Vanity. - Marcika 23:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Eric is certainly a notable CS researcher. The current page is useless, of course. Arbor 08:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep your socks on

delete made up nonsense Sc147 20:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What was that all about, and why was my article deleted with a grand total of 0 votes as of yet, even before I got to comment on it? --TVPR 21:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It was far too creative to be a wikipedia article. Kappa 21:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discacious

Vanity/ Dictdef/ Non-notable, take your pick. I have to say, I will be using that word though! Delete. --Halidecyphon 20:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Non-notable. - Marcika 23:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity neologism. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity neologism. Megan1967 07:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ona staines

Original research, with an 'about the author' section to make sure. With some substantial editing and a move to Ona Staines or Ona Judge Staines we could keep this, but not as it is. SteveW | Talk 20:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• User:65.196.106.162 who posted this has now copied it to Ona Judge Staines. After a search on Google, it appears to be a copyvio anyway ([6] - first hit on google, makes it easier) so I'm listing them there instead. SteveW | Talk 20:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation, promo. Megan1967 07:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 20:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bushmaster XM-15

This is not only a substub that isn't going anywhere, it states that the Bushmaster XM-15 is the civilian version of the M16 rifle series. This is completely false, seeing that a.) many rifles are designed to look like the M16, and b.) if anything can be classified as a civilian version of the M16, it's the AR-15.

• Keep but mark for cleanup and expand. When the October 2002 series of sniper attacks was ongoing around Washington DC, an ex-military friend predicted that this make and model of rifle would prove to be the primary weapon involved. That wound up being true. Thereafter, the Bushmaster XM-15 got a lot of mentions in legitimate news media and in all kinds of blogs. I would argue that (if only because of the Beltway Sniper) it's the most widely known variety of rifle not made primarily for military use. I'd do a rewrite if I knew more about it than that. Barno 02:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but mark for cleanup and expand. Ditto Barno's reasons. KickAir8P~ 02:51, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Merge to either M16 or Beltway Sniper. Radiant_* 09:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Barno's suggestions. --Idont Havaname 03:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shonith Subhash

Not notable, probably vanity. Also, factually incorrect, since the position of town historian does not exist in Anaheim, and even if it did, would not be an elected office. Delete.--Plainsong 22:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:05, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 01:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

U.F.U. and Ufu

• Delete as vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 22:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and stupidity.
  • Comment made by Sanmartin
• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --Marianocecowski 12:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Moronic and vane; not at all important

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roger weide

Not notable. Probably vanity. Suggested action: delete, or at the very least move to Roger Weide. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:48, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

• People that make flash are animatios and post them on messageboards are not notable, likely self-promotion, delete --nixie 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If he would be a notable Flash artist, he would pass the Google test. The International Moron Patrol votes: delete. - Marcika 23:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected. ugen64 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ben Hill

"Community in south-west Atlanta,Ga". Tagged for speedy deletion as "vanity, non-encyclopedic". No vote. Kappa 23:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment there appears to be a Ben Hill in Atlanta Georgia, it is good but should be moved to a more descriptive name and contains more information. --nixie 23:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Benny Hill. Megan1967 09:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or possibly redirect to Ben Hill County, Georgia, not Benny Hill...wtf Mike H 22:28, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 23:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Global Transformation Institute

• Vanity entry for what is apparently a small religious splinter sect. Googling found almost no information. Their homepage is under construction. Delete. -- Marcika 23:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising/vanity. Not notable at present. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Rb. – ABCD 23:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RB

Which stands for, apparently, ringbearer.org . It's a long winding entry detailing the rise of a fandom site. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and this, unlike the Lord of the Rings itself, seems non-notable. Cast into the Fire of Mount Doom!... ahem, sorry, I mean delete. Sabine's Sunbird 23:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete a fansite would have to be really, really, really notable to get it's own article. With an Alexa rank of 374,669 I'm afraid this ain't it. Nice site though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• The site can host its own "History of this site" page. Redirect to retinoblastoma rb. Uncle G 01:34, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Rb, which is a disambig for that letter combo. Dave the Red (talk) 03:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Retinoblastoma. Megan1967 07:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, redirect to the existing disambig Rb, obviously. (Or delete and move Rb to RB, as aren't most short acronym disambigs in caps?) sjorford →•← 09:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not that obvious when one is doing a quick "what links here" check (which, if pursued far enough, also tells one the answer to your question, by the way). ☺ Well spotted. Uncle G 11:48, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rb. Kappa 09:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rb, as per all those above. I updated List of genetic disorders to go straight to Retinoblastoma. --bainer 00:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steven Vu

Arrant nonesense (not encyclopedic). Delete. Mwanner 23:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Patent nonsense as it stands. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:34, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, nonsense. Megan1967 07:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense entry or at best not notable. Shanes 10:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a nonsense to me. jni 12:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Just because it may not be notable to you, does not mean it shouldn't be information that is available. We are a minority in England, and steadily growing. Please tell me how many times any of you have been to England, let alone Kingston, Surrey. Why don't you just delete any minor cult from this encyclopaedia? Vusionary 09:30, 14 Apr 2005 (GMT)
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 01:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A relevant article about a growing phenomena.Muncher 22:51,14 Apr 2005 (GMT)
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 01:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Amusing but total booshwah. Oh, and let's not forget the hosiery. Musn't compromise my principles. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Psychiere Comics

it seems like a vanity comic book label, of the creator

• Delete - Stoph 01:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This VfD didn't make it to the main page. No vote. Xezbeth 07:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed it now, I think. - Stoph 00:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All three hits are Vfd and Vfd mirrors. Also Delete The Impaler, the only article linking to it--"Damien The Impaler" comic -vlad gets zero hits. Niteowlneils 04:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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