Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 16

June 16

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. (Deleted by Golbez on June 19) – Alphax ^τεχ 09:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New bankruptcy law

This appears to a political diatribe of some sort. I can't see what would be appropriate in this place, so I recommend deletion. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Its the same user that created Soliciting Corporate Money, also on VFD and that keeps making anti-Tom DeLay edits. I suggest delete. Deus Ex 00:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Beat me to it on the edit conflict, Deux Ex—I just found that VfD myself. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic. If I could understand the other half of it, I'd probably say POV as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I assume that the article refers to the legislation passed by Congress during this term which has a title and which would probably warrant an NPOV article. Needless to say, this isn't it. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rant. An article on the act in question would properly be exists, and is titled Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and a sentence or two of discussion of nefarious contributions could go somewhere in there. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:28, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: Material on the changes (and how prejudicial they are, and even how they were ramrodded by a particular party that receives money from the financial industry, and even possibly how the bill was drafted by lobbyists) should go in the general Bankruptcy article. No particular need to merge, as the truth is more incriminating than any rant. Geogre 02:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 07:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We already have Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which, coincidentally, badly needs expansion. I think i'll add it to my list . . . - Jersyko talk 14:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and move. I have no problem with an article about this act, but I do have a problem with this POV rant. Aecis 14:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Since the law at hand already has an article, I change my vote to salvage what can be salvaged and needs to be salvaged and then delete. Aecis 16:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. MysteryDog 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Or bankruptcy, I think it's a bit U.S.-centric to redirect as MysteryDog suggested. - Jersyko talk 16:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, a redirect of this title anywhere would be problematic, since it starts with the word "new" - so the redirect will instantly become suspect whenver a newer bankruptcy law was passed somewhere. Logically, that would justify throwing 'new' in front of any topic - new civil rights law, new abortion law, new tax law - and making that a redirect to the main article on that topic, which just strikes me as a bad idea all around. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:47, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Speedy abstain 216.186.53.4 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article on the act exists; POV rant Jareth 18:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per BD2412. 67.101.113.10 21:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV. Pburka 00:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not only a rant, you also have to read until the last paragraph to find out to which country this law applies. VERY bad. -- AlexR 04:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fructose Addiction

Neologistic medical cruft article, one of many and probably the only one not yet VfD'd from the author of such now-protected deleted messages as Stop Drinking Soda. Nothing links here. 3 google hits. All refer to the Wikipedia, when this article was on RfD. Kiand 00:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely ridiculous article... Fructose has no proven addictive qualities... And coming from the user that brought you Banana Addiction as well, this has no credibility what soever. Strong Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Andrew Lin is addicted to creating sugar addiction articles. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lin garbage. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238. - Jersyko talk 01:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Hey yo, kicking Fructose through the help of Andrew Lin lost me like 100 lbs. This shit works miracles. BrowardDon 02:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment account is a known sockpuppet and has been adding vfd notices to some articles that are obvious keeps. The account was created yesterday. - Jersyko talk 02:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lincruft. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:25, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: Fabrication/fantasy/paranoia. Geogre 02:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Wetman 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just make it go away. --Xcali 03:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more Andrew Lincruft. I thought this was deleted already. RickK 05:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because fructose is good for you. Really. Seriously, this seems like original research to me. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 08:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete About the kindest thing one can say of this is that it's original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. Aecis 13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- The Anome 13:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Matjlav 20:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proven true and notable.--Poli 21:11, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bhattacharyya

Seems like vanity to me. No major notability established. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Be sure to look at his other contributions which are advertisements for his companies. commonbrick 01:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. There is a Bhattacharya coefficient and a Bhattacharrya bound (which needs an article), but I very much doubt this guy invented either of them! -Splash
• Delete: Vanity. Should be nowiki'd while on VfD. Geogre 02:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 14:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lame vanity --Adun 16:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If this deserves to be in here, so do a college suitemate of mine and my buddy at MIT, both named Bhattacharyya - it's not an uncommon last name. This is the equivalent of somebody named, say, Bill Lee making a vanity article at Lee. jglc | t | c 16:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems like personal advertisement to me.--Poli 21:11, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Emryn

Advert page for a company. Delete.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• It is spam, so it should be speedily deleted. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: clear advertisement. It should had probably been speedied.Dejan Cabrilo 00:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (signed later, but my original post, you can check the history, I was logged in)
• Delete spamvertisement. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Be sure to look at his other contributions which are advertisements for his companies. commonbrick 01:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy the spam. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy spam. — mark ✎ 10:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic, even if it was not advertisement.--Poli 21:13, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lasto

Looks like web forum vanity to me. [1] alexa shows no traffic information (meaning not within top 100 000) and Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Forum with no real purpose, it says. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. It's not a forum itself, rather forum software such as phpBB2, that costs, making this spam. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but I object to the above call to speedy delete it, after all we have an article on vBulletin which people must pay for, and DiscussionBoard, which itself was subject to a VfD which it survived. And also, it's free to use for non-profit organisations. Talrias (t |

e | c) 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have explained myself a bit better with the speedy vote. vBulletin is a very popular program. It is used by many sites, regardless of the fact that its costs money and there are free alternatives around. Indeed, Lasto is also "free" to non-profit groups, but it still makes money from other groups and is, by my reckoning, inherently nn - to date I have not found a single board that uses this software. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Seeing as you've done some fact-finding I support deletion. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable but not a speedy. --W(t) 13:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Balcony Ball

This is a vanity page about a "game" which is just one of the million games that college students may think of. Delete. Dejan Cabrilo 00:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic and unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unencyclopedic in the extreme. --FCYTravis 00:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. This article took too long to be placed on VFD, so it clearly is wanted. Just kidding. DELETE, clearly not encyclopedic. But it sounds like a fun game. kmccoy (talk) 01:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I wonder what happens when it hits the ground atop someone who isn't making a hoop? Geogre 02:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Walking under the balconies at Sid Rich, one risks being hit by any number of things--most people avoid it. Oh, and delete. Just not notable or encyclopedic. --Tabor 03:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic and vanity. -Snorre/Antwelm 07:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student vanity. JamesBurns 07:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Student vanity. Sounds good fun though, even if it is extremely dangerous. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, games invented by students don't warrant articles unless it is played on a national or professional level or if it's got a long history of being played at the educational institution in question. -Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems like a really cool game, but unfortunatly, not encyclopedic. Unless, of course, one can find enough Universities with 7 floor balconies to make that notable.--Poli 21:15, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Reximer

Google shows very few results [2] as well as not establishing notability under WP:MUSIC. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Remix. --Kiand 00:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just delete, the aul' dyspraxia made me read this as remixer. --Kiand 01:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Some dude with a mixer. No records, no contract, no notability. Geogre 02:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 07:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn DJ vanity. --Etacar11 14:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 20:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Combinatronic

The article appears to be on a completely irrelevant topic (the corruption of a term), and has no content. This page should be deleted, and considered for redirect into combinatorics. Falcon 01:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect only. What an odd attempt at a dictdef. Geogre 02:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -Snorre/Antwelm 07:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. It almost looks like a misspelling of combinatoric. hydnjo talk 18:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to combinatorics, and not combinatoric. Jitse Niesen 23:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Of course, Combinatorics. My error (avoids redirect). hydnjo talk 23:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - combinatorics is surely very well defined mathematical term. Redirect of "Combinatronic" would only polute the namespace of mathematics. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --WikiFan04^{21:57, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

Jenna and Sunny Han

Nom & vote Del on this essentially orphan article (lked only from list of twins & LoPbN) about a crime remarkable only bcz it conflicts with popular superstitions abt bonds between even fraternal twins. Googling

Jenna Sunny "Jenna Han" OR "Sunny Han"

yields "13 of about 14" hits. Non-notable.--Jerzy·t 01:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If this happened, it is possibly notable (from a non-US perspective) in that the majority of the perpetrators didn't go to jail for extended periods. It is also a counter to the glowing tales told of the loyalty between identical twins. *If* it happened. --Simon Cursitor 07:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Amending vote to merge and redirect per consensus --Simon Cursitor 06:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and Delete this and this. According to this, it happened. Also note that the name is actually Jeen Han, and there's another article on her, as well as one for her sister. Han twins murder conspiracy has way more information than all three, and even if it's determined to be notable, these three for certain are not needed. siafu 07:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: Nominator changing vote; let's merge all those mentioned down to the most sensible one or two, and nominate what's left as a group deletion. --Jerzy·t 08:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Han twins murder conspiracy. JamesBurns 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge like JamesBurns said. --W(t) 13:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect this and Jeen Han and Sunny Han to Han twins murder conspiracy. -- Lochaber 15:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I agree with Lochaber. Pburka 00:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chewbacca Defense

This article was previously nominated for deletion on 2003-09-29. The result of the discussion was Keep. The discussion can be found at Talk:Chewbacca Defense.

Funny, but still a neologism, and not especially widespread. Denni☯ 01:37, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Keep or possibly merge with other frivolous / non-logical arguments like Twinkie Defense User:Peter Grey 02:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just finished law school where, believe me, it's widespread. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: Is the term widespread? The previous keep was "it might catch on." Well, I've never yet heard the term. It's a South Park reference. On the other hand, the Twinkie defense, while stupid, was an actual attempted defense strategy. Geogre 02:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: You'd think the Chewbacca Defense would just be, "Let the Wookiee win," but, nooo... ~Mbsp (contributing nothing useful) 02:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Chef Aid (which is the episode of South Park that this appears in, and is currently a redirect to the article), condense the part about the Wookiee stuff, and expand to cover the entire episode. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep. I have heard it applied to many different court cases as a parody. Ral315 03:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have never heard of it, but that's because I'm not an Anglosaxon. It certainly looks notable. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I would like to see more references from the academic world. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, - even if it's a neologism, it is one which is going to get used, both inside and outside lawyer-speak, and it's both useful and non-defamatory (since the Wookie is Fictional Character) --Simon Cursitor 07:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Have to disagree and say Delete. Non-notable neologism. - Sikon 07:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable term. JamesBurns 08:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The term was indeed coined from South Park as a neologism, but this was back in 2001. Since then, the term has become accepted (as far as I'm aware, even some lawyers use it to deride their opponents) - Google throws up 9,530 results. If anything it's worth keeping simply as one of the few recent neologisms that have survived. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Chef Aid. Quite notable. I've heard of it and I'm not particularly well versed in law. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Chef Aid.I've seen it a few places on the net and when I first saw it didn't know what it was about. I definitely think Wikipedia should have the answer when people go looking for things like this.old joe 09:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If Chewbacca is a Wookie, you must keep. Proto 09:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Chef Aid; even in back of beyond Germany, we've heard about this term; I'm quite surprised to hear that it has found it's way into 'normal' (lawyers?) speech Lectonar 11:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed VFD discussion, the nominator would certainly want you to believe that this is a humourous item from a single episode of South Park that has no relevance outside of the television series. And xe makes a good case. Hell, I almost believe it myself!
  But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed discussion, I have one thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca can be found mentioned in discussions about the U.S. Department of Justice, about Michael Moore, about Dan Rather, about Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and about Michael Moore again. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee — an eight foot tall fictional Star Wars character — turn up in commentaries on U.S. politics? That does not make sense!
  Look at me, I'm a Wikipedia editor discussing the deletion of a Wikipedia article, and I'm talkin' about Michael Moore. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, none of this makes sense!
  And so you have to remember, when you're trudging through WP:VFD/Old supposing and fussing on the closing of the discussion... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed discussion, it does not make sense.
  If Chewbacca is used as a rhetorical tool in U.S. political commentary, you must keep! The defense rests.
  Uncle G 12:46, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• keep. Delightful.--Ian Pitchford 12:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cultural tidbit which certainly seems to have spread beyond the show itself. I'd say to revisit this VfD in 10 years or so to see if it's stood the test of time. Also congratulations to Uncle G for an awesome vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. --W(t) 13:24, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Look at the silly monkey! (head explodes) -- BD2412 ^talk 13:31, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • If only to prove the real power of the Chewbacca Defense. Can we BJAODN Uncle G's text there? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we have a moral obligation to do so. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:10, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep. Well put, Uncle G. Bravo! Meelar (talk) 14:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't make sense . . . so confused . . . must keep if it makes no sense . . . --Scimitar 15:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to whatever the name of the episode of the stupid television program was, with a redirect. func(talk) 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If the glove doesn't fit, you must (a) rescue Yoda from Kashyyk, (b) Acquit, and (c) be played by Peter Mayhew. Were you played by Peter Mayhew? He is a player, for sure, that one. Cookies. Doody. Poo-poo. Mama. Keepy. jglc | t | c 16:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge This is stuff like the south park sex positions Muijzo 16:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this article was written the day of the first airing, yeah, but it's a matured concept with widespread adoption.--Chairboy 17:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Uncle G, you made my day. --Arcadian 19:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Chef Aid. I think the inherent "geek" bias of this community is showing on this one. I've seen it on a web forum or two, but I don't know that the world at large has heard of this. --Xcali 22:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – I've heard of it and I'm... oh, never mind. Just keep --Mothperson 02:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I was about to send this link to someone as I use it often as an analogy for various things. I can't beleive you want to delete this!! This does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! See how many google hits there are..... Jgritz 07:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and incorporate evidence of use as described by User:Uncle G into article. --Metropolitan90 07:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Uncle G's argument is very convincing (and those references need to be incorporated into the article). --L33tminion (talk) 16:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. --cesarb 17:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly widespread use. Not entirely restricted to the South Park fan community by any means. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Look: Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed wiki, Denni would certainly want you to believe that this article, Chewbacca defence, is an unencyclopedic article. And he makes a good case. Hell, I almost fell for it myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen of the wiki, this Image:Chewbacca.jpg is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm a geek editor defending a noted geek joke article, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in your computer rooms deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must keep! The defense rests. Project2501a 09:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've heard the term plenty of times, although I misinterpreted it as "let the Wookiee win." Also, Project2501a's argument is as inarguable as Mom, baseball, and apple pie. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 12:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

No, man, you got to ask. What would Brian Boytano do? Project2501a 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - me likes them hairy! -- AlexR 18:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. — Phil Welch 07:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We need this to show to some unfortunate editors who employ this defense. Mgw 16:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Heck, I just spotted it on a VfD two days ago! Extra points to silsor for the phrase argumentum ad chewbaccum. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 12:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• The most fun I've had on VfD in a long time. Keep, and I hope it comes back again next year! argumentum ad chewbaccum... beautiful! -Eisnel 05:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, so we can proudly say:

— Rickyrab | Talk 22:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 20:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fight Club Rules

The first rule of..nevermind. It is just a duplicate information from the Fight Club article. Why do we need a seperate article about the rules of the fictional club? Just redirected. No need to merge. Contacted the creator and replied. Chill Pill Bill 01:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I wanted to add that the creator created another article related to the fictional work that was just recently redirected by anonymous contributor: Project Mayhem Rules. --Chill Pill Bill 01:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is just down the hall, on your left. Uncle G 01:59, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

ATRC

Fancruft.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: What is it? The article doesn't say. Pretty much nonsense at this point. Verification? Well, since we don't know what it is, we can't really confirm it. Significant as a topic? Seems like it's all about the whacky sense of humor of something called Link 80. Is anyone/anything outside of that context going to know to look for this? Well, "many" have joined it. Who? What? What is it? Delete to solve these agonies. Geogre 02:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently, from some extremely nonsensical google results, it's some in-joke of Link 80. Completely non-notable fancruft indeed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 07:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. — mark ✎ 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge if anyone knows what it's about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: http://atrcrew.com/ —Wahoofive (talk) 17:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, saw this the other day & figured I'd see if anyone nominated it. StopTheFiling 22:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Link 80. (One of the links to this article is for a nuclear reactor in Idaho: List of nuclear reactors. Probably not what was intended.) Pburka 00:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 20:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Big Tymers

Yall gotta learn. Dont fuck with White Dawg. Him and his krew WILL get back atcho ass. LIKE THIS SON. This article is about a bunch of non-notable people who do NOT deserve an article! the information is also NOT FACTUAL. BrowardDon 02:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Nominator has made other such nominations within the few hours his account has been active.~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. --Tabor 03:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hell, six published albums on significant labels -- they're easily notable enough. And considering the "Dont fuck with White Dawg" stuff we see above, I have to question the neutrality of BrowardDon on this matter. This kind of blatantly biased crap isn't really what the VfD process is here for. -- Captain Disdain 04:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Their All-Music Guide profile [3] shows that most of their albums have charted and they have several hit singles. Hood Rich released in 2002 reached the top of the Billboard charts. By doing so, they easily meet the WikiMusic Project guidelines. Unfortunately, their article does not establish this notability. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep passes MUSIC guidelines. Easily notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded article to establish notability. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Anybody want to start a petition to keep users with "Broward" in their names from voting or editing anything, ever? jglc | t | c 16:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

List of months by year: 1800-1899, List of months by year: 1700-1799, List of months by year: 1600-1699, List of months by year

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999. – ugen64 01:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my vote is delete. – ugen64 14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Just found these pages - they seem really useful 12:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) [anonymous user]
• Delete these seas of red links. Denni☯ 03:07, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. If people want to do this, let them. It doesn't matter if it takes years to do just a fraction of the months. CalJW 05:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per previous discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999. --Tabor 06:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless; as notable as dates and years. siafu 07:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per precedent set by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999. JamesBurns 07:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per precedent. Proto 09:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per precedent. — mark ✎ 10:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per precedent set by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999 - Skysmith 10:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see a need for this at the moment, and this should not be something created from the top down, with potential forking problems. If the year articles were overlong (and only the most recent are long) then it would be justified in splitting them up into months. Average Earthman 11:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we can create it once it becomes necessary, if it ever does. --W(t) 13:25, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete this today, delete it tomorrow, delete it Saturday, delete it Sunday, and so forth until December 31, 2199. Precedent, and unencyclopedic uselessness. Where's Kappa's "Keep, real months" vote? Barno 20:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete every list that is fifty bajillion redlinks. ::eyes zoning out…can't focus…too much red…:: Hermione1980 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I believe that before these are deleted, any blue links should be fixed on the pages that link there since they are likely not pointing to the right article in most cases. 65.40.145.19 05:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmmm. Is it a coincidence or does every year listed have the same twelve months? Weird. Anyway, Delete. -R. fiend 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 20:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Eightball & MJG

NON NOTABLE. BrowardDon 02:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I know preciously little about rap, but i have heard of eightball & mjg and their influence on the underground scene. quite notable. - Jersyko talk 02:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Recently added discography which shows 2 albums under Bad Boy Records satisfying WP:MUSIC #3. Has also worked with P. Diddy and Lloyd among others. Definetly notable in rap music. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily verifyable, and this user has been constant submitting things like this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See many other nominations by this user. --Tabor 03:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. C'mon, this is just silly. -- Captain Disdain 04:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per WikiMusic Project guidelines.Capitalistroadster 05:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Anybody want to start a petition to keep users with "Broward" in their names from voting or editing anything, ever? jglc | t | c 16:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: They're pretty notable. They're part of the Bad Boy label, which is run by P.Diddy, who is very notable. Their "You Don't Want Drama" was in the top 50, and they also fulfill "has released two or more albums on a major label," among other ones.newkai 09:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

7.0 earthquake in Eureka

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. I did see something about this in the paper this morning, although its impact seems to have been brief. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 02:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, the title is bad, and the writing is shaky. Best to start from scratch if at all. Denni☯ 02:15, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Save. Yes, the impact as an earthquake was brief. However it was a significant test of the tsunami detection capability in the Pacafic Ocean. Yes, the writing is skaky and the title is bad. However it should be kept while it is being rewritten and a good title is chosen.

Note: That statement by 24.19.45.139

• Delete: The title is impossible to seek or find. Wikipedia is not In the News. In the News is written as a separate entity and links to general topics. A mention can be added to tsunami that one occurred last night. Geogre 02:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see a firm foundation for an article here. --Xcali 03:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete earthquake with no casualties or property damage. -- Jonel | Speak 04:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• if judging as per 24.19.45.139, Merge with Tsunami warning system's "Shortcomings" sections as a "False Positive" example. Otherwise, as per Jonel, Delete. The Literate Engineer 07:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Tsunami warning system. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikinews covered this: Tsunami bulletin issued from Pacific coast of California-Mexico border to Vancouver, Canada. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

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

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

Future energy usage scenarios

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Essay/speculation. — Gwalla | Talk 01:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to say delete to this wretched little essay, but I think there is salvageable material here, particularly under a different title, so Weak keep. Denni☯ 02:21, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. JYolkowski // talk 02:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Xcali 03:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball, place for original research to be published, nor a soapbox. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation. NOR/NOO --Tabor 03:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Worth having but is already done better elsewhere. Merge anything useful with Future Energy Development then Delete.old joe 09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR/Crystal ball. — mark ✎ 10:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since Energy development already does a far more professional job. Merge anything that appears unsaid in Energy development, but this may be nothing, particularly since there are no references cited. -Splash 12:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge since I wrote it, I'm biased. Unlike energy development this page mentions and addresses energy Future energy use/consumption scenerios which was blank when I found it. In all my journey it has come to my attention that the most important area in which the greatest increase in effeciency can be made is the transportation sectors transition from onboard ICE to BEV/PHEVs! Please see also Talk:Hybrid_vehicle#Hybrid_What.3F for an important overlooked truth of current transportation.--D0li0 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 20:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Splash says. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 anything useful and redirect to 13th Floor Elevators. (Two redirects and three deletes are not a consensus to delete, the redirect votes said "merging anything useful", therefore merge) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Ike Walton

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. The 13th Floor Elevators are notable but I'm not sure if their drummer is in his own right. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 02:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Material is not really appropriate for merging to 13th Floor Elevators, and candidate is NN. Denni☯ 02:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: I love the 13th Floor Elevators, and it's great that we cover them, but it's just plain wasteful to wikilink every band member's name when those musicians haven't achieved notability outside of the band. Geogre 02:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 13th Floor Elevators, merging anything useful --Xcali 03:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Xcali. Meelar (talk) 16:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 20:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Trina

DONT FUCK WIF WHITE DAWG. BROWARD REPRESENT! THIS ARTICLE IS NON NOTABLE AND DOES NOT PASS WP: MUSIC BrowardDon 02:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Um, keep, does pass WP:MUSIC. Also, probable sockpuppet nomination. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article establishes notability... and your edits look awfully similar to User:BrowardBulldawg... Hmmm... I wonder... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See many other nominations by this user on this page. --Tabor 03:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WikiMusic Guidelines. The nominator should read the guidelines about not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep does pass WikiMusic guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As much as I hate rap, this article belongs on Wikipedia. Aecis 13:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Damn it, we really, really, really, really need to get all these Broward* users banned for life. This is unbelievable. jglc | t | c 16:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person.--Kross 22:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mario Gonsales Ishikawa

Looks to be a vanity page. Delete. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The fate of the page Vieira-Ishikawa Software should also be dealt with here if there are not objections. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both pages as vantiy and advertising. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. nn. --Xcali 03:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both is vanity. -Snorre/Antwelm 07:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant vanity. RussellG 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and advertising. --Etacar11 14:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cuz i got hos in diff'rent area codez--64.229.218.142 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Komplete

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Non-notable chat group. — Gwalla | Talk 02:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Website vanity. Alexa rank 4,783,298 --Tabor 04:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Tabor --Artorius 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Completeness. Current article is website advertising. JamesBurns 07:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm a little rusty on my Ecclesiastes, but would that be one about "vanity" and a "striving after the wind"? Delete vanity. --Scimitar 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." -- Ecclesiastes 1:2 -- Plutor 15:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't sound like they've even accomplished the minor tasks they've set out to accomplish. --Habap 15:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. You (Talk) 19:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rafal Olaf von Schubert

Best permutation of names gets 2 discrete Google hits. Title gets zero. Definitely non-notable, probably hoax. Denni☯ 02:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Note: VfD template keeps getting removed from the page. --cesarb 13:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Patent vanity. Likely hoax. How many 21 year old commentators does the BBC have? I'm guessing 0. --Xcali 03:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Xcali, you know perfectly well this isn't patent vanity. I doubt it's even vanity, for that matter. And even if it were, vanity is not a criterion for speedy delete. Until policy changes, that's why we have VfD. Denni☯ 05:09, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • Let's see, 21 years old, claims of outstanding achievements, no evidence of those claims. Probably created just to put his name in an article. I'd call that patent vanity bordering on nonsense. --Xcali 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Anyone can enter their comments on the BBC discussion pages on the wonderful BBC website. This does not, however, make them BBC commentators. Jez 17:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Unnotable. Looks like vanity to me. -Snorre/Antwelm 07:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Clusty doesn't provide any relevant links to his literature. And a google search on "Schubert" "BBC" "commentator" only yields results on a certain famous classical composer. Unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete through vfd--not speedy. Thanks, Denni. Meelar (talk) 13:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/unverified. --Etacar11 14:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Martg76 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This person is noted in this German literature - Franz Schubert Herkunft und Verwandtschaft by Heinz Schöny on Schubert's family tree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braderder (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 Jun 2005

  New account; only contribution is this vote --cesarb 16:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable person. Maybe this kid is a descendant of THE Franz Schubert. So what? Jez 17:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If that were true, were would the von come from? Martg76 21:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. As far as w eknow Schubert didn't have any children, SqueakBox 21:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wow, there is a lot of negativity here. Anyways, like Braderder said you probably can find this individual in Franz Schubert Herkunft und Verwandtschaft by Heinz Schöny on Schubert's family tree, but I'm not sure. I have however read of this guy in Toronto Star, can't recall when. If anyone is from the metropolitan Toronto area maybe they can recall the date. Anyways, Mr. Schubert has also supporter of Stem Cell research as the article stated, but I wont't post until I find the article.--CanadianPride 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  User removed two comments while adding this vote. Account's first edit. --cesarb 01:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unbelievable Schubert spoof. Speedy delete, SqueakBox 01:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn. Not only are there only "two discrete google hits", they are both from Wikipedia itself. Antandrus (talk) 01:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepIf you use google, no wonder you can't find information on this individual.--HistoricalAce 20:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Account created 10 minutes before this vote; user's fourth edit. --cesarb 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Lichtenstein

This seems to be a personal ad and it is not encylopedia-worthy. freestylefrappe 04:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

This nomination was begun but stp 3 not completed. I am finishing the listing now.RJFJR 02:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• This is a valid encyclopedia-worthy page. Encyclopedias often contain biographical and other information about artists and writers of note. Any biographical entry in this encyclopedia could be deemed a personal ad, if the same criteria were used. This page is not very developed yet, but it shouldn't be deleted just because of a lack of information as of yet. It is a fair argument to say that the information about this person is just as valid as any other person in Wikipedia. If there had been an internet during Vincent Van Gogh's time, and someone tried to enter him in wikipedia, I'm sure there would have been someone else who considered his entry a personal ad and voted to have him removed, since he was not all that famous or popular while still alive. --lichtentunes 3:41 June 7, 2005
  • Comment: Are you any of the persons in question?, ie Thomas, Lisa or Laur? If so, I do not understand why you refer to yourself in the above comment as `this person`. It seems all this effort, both by you, and everyone voting here (who also spends a lot of groundwork before voting, like verification etc) could have been solved if you could state such. Cause, if you are, the 2+1 articles could easily be moved to your Uer area where it belongs. -Snorre/Antwelm 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Wikipedia, as per its policy, is not a crystal ball. This isn't the place to predict future notability, only to write about it when it is achieved. Like any normal encyclopedia, you don't write about everyone in the world in hopes that they achieve recognition in their field. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Lichtentunes. I don't see how this person is notable in her own right. She's working on an unpublished book. Her main claim to fame seems to be that her brother is famous. --Xcali 03:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and/or delete. It's not very notable for the above reason, the book is not published and the wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, blah blah. Deletion also on the reasons of advertising/self-promotion, and the Wikipedia not being a place for advertising. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete. "I'm sure there would have been someone else who considered his entry a personal ad and voted to have him removed, since he was not all that famous or popular while still alive." And that would have been the correct decision at that time. Wikipedia does not include people on the off-chance of future notability. It also seems we have a whole family of vanity articles here, including Laur Lichtenstein. I would consider the brother's entry (Thomas Howard Lichtenstein) borderline. --Tabor 04:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. JamesBurns 07:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy/Delete vanity. She's not notable yet. And if that changes someone else should write it, obviously. --Etacar11 15:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete/userfy: The subject is not notable at this time, and the article is not an article, but rather a series of bullet points. An article should discuss, contextualize, and analyze; it is a discussion rather than a statement of facts. If no discussion is possible, then, IMO, no article is possible. Geogre 19:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 20:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Capri

Non-notable hoe.BrowardDon 02:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep certainly passes google test [4] and seems like she's fairly notable in certain circles... Think would count as a notable porn star... though not sure what the guidelines on those are. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See many other nominations by this user on this page. --Tabor 03:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Assume bad faith in regards to nominator, but having said that, does this particular porn-lady need her own article? (Abstain, no personal clue about the porn industry.) Marblespire 04:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually, this is a notable ho. Although I do admit that it's articles like this that could get Wikipedia blocked from some schools... -- Grev -- Talk 04:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Alexa ranking for jordancapri.com is 21,444, roughly in the same neighborhood as Wikinews (20,563) ... for whatever such measures are worth. --Tabor 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that the small unpaid volunteer campaign to encourage people to look at Wikinews has had better results than the well-oiled, well-funded, professional, Internet pornography machine's campaign to promote yet another pornographic model from which money can be made, is good news for Wikinews. ☺ Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep, notable porn model. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable how? Please name a magazine cover that this model has graced, legal controversy that she has caused, mainstream film that she has starred in, major business that she has run, book that she has written, or field that she has been the first in. Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. JamesBurns 07:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for a site on a person as opposed to just a forum, I find such an Alexa ranking convincing. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I need to find out if this sockpuppy has been banned. At any rate, the "article" is non-existant, and the notability presented in the article is that she's cute. I'm sure she is. I'm sure that it's better to see her naked than most of us, but what, exactly, has she done to be notable? Is she a noted entrepeneur like Danni Ashe? Is she a cross-over actress, like Jenna Jameson? Is she a trailblazer, like Seka? If she's merely popular for being pretty, then the Google hits will be biased like crazy, and the careers of pornographic models are fantastically short. Geogre 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Geogre, Miss Capri is well-known only because one of her college buddies submits teaser pages (a few photos and a link to her part of the "Lightspeed University" website) to many of the daily lists of porn galleries almost every day. While I would vote myself into her dorm room, I don't think she has any particular notability or notoriety like the three actresses that you mentioned. I would vote "weak delete" (since the bar for the Google test needs to be higher for porn than for hand-carved woodcuts), except that that would bring me into agreement with BrowardDon. Weak keep based only on the Alexa and Google numbers. Barno 20:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The Internet pornography industry deliberately skews page rankings. Indeed, there's a whole sub-industry devoted to doing exactly that (that is happy to try to employ Wikipedia, and its sibling projects, for this purpose — Reverting pornographic link spam is a regular maintenance chore on all of them.). A ranking has to be exceptional for it to be a meaningful sole claim to notability for such a model; and this one isn't. There's nothing else whatever that makes this person notable. She's 18 and one of thousands of models that are set up on pornographic sites and (as Barno says) promoted like crazy by the people who own the photography rights, and that (as Geogre says) never amount to anything and soon disappear. Wikipedia is not a directory of pornographic models with the career lifespans of mayflies, nor is it yet another advertizing billboard for them before they have become notable. For that reason, and for the very good reasons given by Geogre and Barno (who shouldn't be caring about BrowardDon in this case), Delete. Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep, notable within her field. Kappa 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Again I ask: Notable how? There are lots of people within her field, and in her field she is in fact no different at all from all of the rest. In her field there are thousands of models about whom all that is known is a Playboy-style set of vital statistics, just like this person. In her field there are thousands of promoters busily submitting their models to pornography advertising sites, spamming Wikipedia with external hyperlinks, and spamming people with junk electronic mail, just as with this person. Please name a magazine cover that this model has graced, legal controversy that she has caused, mainstream film that she has starred in, major business that she has run, book that she has written, or field that she has been the first in. Uncle G 19:23, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete How special is she compared to all the other porn actors out there? Billhpike 19:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 15:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sephardic Judaism

This article should be deleted as it is a shorter version of Sephardi. I would have added the merge tag but this contains no new information not currently covered in Sephardi. freestylefrappe 21:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

This VFD nomination was begun but step 3 not completed. I am finishing it.RJFJR 02:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sephardi. DS1953 02:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sephardi, as there is indeed nothing to merge. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:11, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sephardi, just as Ashkenazic Judaism redirects to Ashkenazi. IZAK 03:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Park

Do all rapists need their own articles? This doesn't even look like a remotely high porfile case. I say Delete for non-notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree.Delete.Mr Tan 03:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be a hoax, or an attack page (the chicken thing is a bit much), but ultimately it's just not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:12, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. I oppose the user that made this article, but on its own the article is pretty useless anyways. The news site it links to is just as sparse on info. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like an attack page. JamesBurns 07:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews or delete. There's not enough info to write up a helpful article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikinews could certainly report it, providing a news summary based upon the source and whatever else could be located. However, straight transwikification to Wikinews is not currently legal, as it would involve taking GFDL material and putting it into the public domain. Uncle G 13:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete — no, not all rapists need their own articles. — mark ✎ 10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's apparently true (article includes link to news story) but still not notable enough. Also, he's charged with assault, not rape. Common crime (sadly) with only the chicken offer to make it "notable" which just isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• This is pretty much a news article placed in the wrong project. There's nothing of encyclopaedic value here. The charge is a class A misdemeanour. Keene District Court doesn't deal with major crimes. Wikinews covers the story (in more detail, and with better sources) at Wikinews:"Chicken for sex" meat salesman is charged with assault. Delete. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete: Misplaced, not an article, and it indicates that he's charged with kissing. That is assault, but it's hardly something even worthy of being in the news, much less in the encyclopedia. (Yes, yes, "thigh or breast" "white meat or dark" etc. Your joke here.) Geogre 19:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. StopTheFiling 22:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Hong Kong Synthetic Discussion Board

Webvertising. Denni☯ 03:02, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete: no notable content; advertising --Amoore 03:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Concurrence with two previous votes. Srcrowl 07:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 07:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete webvertising. — mark ✎ 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

List of songs with no rhyme in lyrics

Wouldn't this be about half of the songs ever written? I don't see this as encyclopedic, maintainable, or useful. --Xcali 03:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, song lyrics almost always seem to rhyme, it would be interesting to have more examples where they don't. Kappa 03:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I can pick a song at random and have a nice chance of it not rhyming, especially if it's not of a typically rhyming genre. I don't know if there's an encyclopedic reason for having the article, either. Could mention this elsewhere, but an article of its own? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there are genres which don't typically rhyme, they should mentioned at the beginning and excluded from the list itself. I'm not convinced about your random song theory, have you tried it? Kappa 05:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, good grief, delete. What's next, a "List of songs with rhyme in the lyrics"? This is not encyclopedic information; furthermore, the list would be so ridiculously huge that it'd be absolutely pointless. -- Captain Disdain 04:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, one of a large list of "List of songs ..." RickK 05:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable and useless list. There's also no useful definition of "rhyme" provided: I don't think any of Eminem's songs rhyme, although he clearly intends them to. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it already has an impressive three (3) titles, one of which is "Detachable Penis" by King Missile. How come Mr. Missile couldn't think of "hatchback genius"? Eixo 07:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trvial unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no more trivial than many song lists. Songs always rhyme somewhere in the lyrics, that's the point, so I find a list of those that don't very interesting. sjorford →•← 08:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. Radiant_>|< 09:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly trivial and unmaintainable. — mark ✎ 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very interesting, and we have tons of song lists, many far more odd or trivial than this. I've expanded it (doubled it, actually). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we have lots of these lists and they should all go. They're wildly incomplete and unmaintainable. --W(t) 13:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the purpose of all these lists? To organize Wikipedia articles. This list of songs has only one song with a Wikipedia article. Therefore it is effectively a list of one for purposes of organization. Therefore it fails the primary function of the list, and should be deleted. --Scimitar 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't that why we have categories? I'm wondering what purpose these lists actually serve. --Xcali 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Let me first note that List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics exists without debate and, actually, is rather interesting. It also has a long list of varied contributors, and seems to have been upkept rather well. While the encyclopaedic nature of the list can be questioned, I would say that WINP. Keep. jglc | t | c 16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable and trivial list. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Unencyclopedic even beyond most lists. Bar-bet trivia that can never be complete and only serves the author's demons, not any reader's curiosity. Geogre 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am curious as to whether anyone can find any more of these things. Kappa 23:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft. --Carnildo 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable list, non-encyclopedic. I am also of the opinion that songs, like poetry, needn't rhyme; non-rhyming probably isn't notable. Xoloz 04:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• So is this supposed to only include songs in which no two words at all rhyme? That would be a good trick. Anyway, delete, for varoius reasons given above. -R. fiend 05:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unmaintainable, useless, trivial, whathaveyou. An article about rhyme in song lyrics could be very interesting, and it could cite various examples (songs that make no attempt to rhyme, songs that make a joke out of an expected rhyme like that "Shaving cream" one, songs that use words that only rhyme when using certain accents, etc). -Eisnel 06:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Coach Digit

Advert for a message board, I believe. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 03:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I concur. Deltabeignet 03:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 04:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete forum advertising. JamesBurns 07:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. — mark ✎ 10:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed -- RussellG 10:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantors

This vote is unusual, it is about the user page of User:Cantors who has re-inserted on it material from an article already voted for deletion because of contravening the guidelines in Wikipedia:Vanity page, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs. It is also in contravention of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox point 6: "Self-promotion...A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable...Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:User page#What can I have on my user page? state that "...A good start is to add a little information about yourself...Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page...Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage..." Finally, this user has also chosen a name that contravenes Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames. See the Wikipedia log-in page [5] to "Avoid usernames that are offensive, inflammatory, or confusing...Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure" such as Cantors, see also Category:Cantors. IZAK 02:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete contents and Rename user's name, for the above reasons. IZAK 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong in VfD. Moving deleted article content to user space is not unusual. As you note, VfD does not customarily address user space. VfD does not seem to be the right place for reporting a problematic user name. If the username selection seems truly egregious, WP:AN/I might be a better place to try. (Or maybe someone will have a better suggestion.) As a side note, the same content appears at User:Merlinzor. I have no idea if that is considered an offensive user name. --Tabor 04:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of his other sockpuppets, User:Rabbis, has been blocked for making legal threats. RickK 05:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete industrial-strength vanity attack. (Personally, I suspect it's all the work of Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs himself.) Also delete the nearly identical User:Merlinzor page. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Also User talk:Professor Kaufman -- persistent, he is. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification: By "delete", I mean all 3 re-created vanity articles and the associated photos. None of the three identities (Merlinzor, Professor Kaufman, and Cantors) claims to be Kepecs, which would be the only (marginal) reason for keeping the material there. I have no opinion on the user name "Cantors". --Calton | Talk 04:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 07:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ask user to take a different name. I'm undecided about the content of his page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I don't see any reason this guy shouldn't be allowed to have the user name "Cantors." What the login page says is to "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure or event or known Wikipedia user." (my emphasis) That policy refers to the names of promininent individuals, not to the name of an entire profession. For example, someone shouldn't take the user name "Billy Grahm," but there would be nothing wrong with someone taking the user name "Preachers," or "Choir Singer," or "Alter Boys." The dude sings at his local sinagague and he was the first to take the user name, so give him a break! Blackcats 10:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User:Cantors, User:Merlinzor, and User talk:Professor Kaufman. Having one user/user talk page with this self-promotional material would be a borderline keep for me, but having three makes it clear that this person is using Wikipedia for something it was not intended for. Regarding the user names, I have no idea what's wrong with Cantors – it's not offensive, and it's just a word. Does my username imply that I am a robot? Should I have to change it because of that? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• For other related VFD discussions, in addition to those already mentioned, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Victor Beck and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gary Krupp. Uncle G 13:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a web host. --W(t) 13:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete User:Cantors, User:Merlinzor, and User talk:Professor Kaufman. While User: pages are normally not candidates for deletion, this continual promotion of vanity material has gone on for far too long. From what I can tell it has been inserted (in various forms) into at least 10 different articles now by at least 5 different sockpuppets and another half dozen anonymous IPs. Wikipedia is not a webhost, nor a forum for self-advertisement. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment: I see no problem with a user having a name such as Cantors - as Blackcats says above, it is a religious rank or title, not the name of a religious figure. If I took User:John_Paul_II, that would be subject to censure. However, claiming User:The_Pope is not offensive (perhaps implicitly, but it could have been done in good faith). However, as user has been known to act in bad faith, contributing negatively to Wikipedia, I voted to delete. jglc | t | c 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I guess I wasn't completely aware of all the other issues, besides him using the name "Cantors." It seems the main issue is that he's using his user page essentially as a web-hosting space without contributing much to any other articles. I'd say then that the content of his user page (and talk, etc) could be removed and the page protected until the user has made say 250 edits, or whatever,to show that he's more serious about Wikipedia. And then if he becomes disruptive, or is really not editing in good faith, then his user name can be blocked. I just really don't think that blocking or user page deletion is warranted merely because someone has a name that's a religious title. Blackcats 20:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Deceptive activity can't be good for this project and it's community. I trust IZAK on this one. hydnjo talk 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the user name. Cantors isn't a religious figure, and could very well be the user's actual surname, as evidenced by the fact that there are four articles for people with that surname. Pburka 03:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Complex vote: The user should be allowed to continue to use the username User:Cantors per Blackcats. However, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider and the user's placement of a full biography on two user pages and a user talk page violates that official policy. Excessive content should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Userpage#Removal. Nevertheless, at least the first sentence on User:Cantors should be allowed to stay in any event because it is consistent with user page guidelines. --Metropolitan90 03:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteShameless self-promotion. Walkerma 04:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, request new userid and recommend block this user for at least a month. Users Merlinzor, Rabbis, Cantors, and Professor_Kaufman are, along with a plethora of fake accounts and complete IP anons, all the same person, as is evidenced by his/their uniform writing style, edit content, POV, etc., as can easily be concluded by reviewing their combined edit histories. This user has engaged in pushing the completely unverifiable title "Reverend Cantor" in a dozen different (albethey related) articles, persistent insertion of images of copyrighted text into several articles, and destructively persistent insertion of irrelevant aggrandizing text into various other articles. If this were a RfC, I'd go to the trouble of seeking out actual documentation for my claims, but there are a number of other editors here (with access I lack) who can attest to my unsourced claims on this matter. As for the n00b User:Pburka's statement that Cantors could conceivably be a surname, I submit that the user in question is most likely not surnamed "Cantors" (in fact, while Cantor is a relatively widespread surname, "Cantors" is nonexistant as such), and further, is neither a cantor, nor a cantor in training. This multinamed user has claimed to be a rabbi-in-training, which is, as anyone with 3 minutes of Jewish learning can tell you, a completely uninformed and patently ridiculous claim, for reasons I can go into if anyone other than the vandalism-prone user in question requests rationale for that statement. Beyond that, it appears entirely likely that Pburka (talk · contribs) is actually just another sockpuppet of the user in question. All of that said, a study of the history of the discussions regarding the various VfDs of the articles this user has copied to his various sockpuppet userpages (in addition to those not yet reproduced there), reveals that the choice of the usernames "Cantors", "Rabbis" and "Professor Kaufman" were chosen in a deliberate attempt to establish (nonexistant) authority on the pet topic of this user. This is a bad faith editor whose contributions have done nothing whatsoever to improve the Project, and in a number of cases (notably at Hazzan and a number of articles related to the Papacy of John Paul II) amount to nothing but outright POV-pushing vandalism. Tomer ^TALK 07:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe you're confusing Pburka (talk · contribs) with someone else (who has a name like "Rabbi2b" or something like it), as I see no sign that Pburka has ever claimed to be a rabbinical student, and he/she has a fairly long editing history. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that, for whatever reason, you're completely confusing what I said. I did not say anything to the effect that Pburka made any claims about being a rabbinical student, rather that Pburka asserted that "Cantors" might be a surname, which as I said, it is not, and I then proceeded to further say that I think Pburka may be yet another sock puppet, given the shortlived (about 2 and a half weeks thus far), and not incredibly diversified (about half of this user's edits are to VfD pages), albeit prolific edit history, especially as compared to some of Merlinzor's other sock puppets. In any case, Pburka's statement that it may be a surname in light of the supposèd fact that it's the surname of 4 people about whom WP has articles, indicates a failure to grasp the meaning of surname. I'm not sure that votes of illiterati should be counted in a VfD. Tomer ^TALK 10:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to WP:BITE. Cantors isn't a common surname but it is the plural form of a common surname. There are four articles on Wikipedia about people with the surname Cantor. Two mathemeticians, one historian and an entertainer. There's no indication that this user contributed to any of those articles. While you may dislike this user, his name is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. If it were, we'd also need to delete Pope (talk · contribs) and Monk (talk · contribs). Ban him for his actions, if you wish, but not his name. Pburka 20:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with your assessment of his username (to wit: It is fine, nonoffensive, &c.), but disagree with your citation of WP:BITE. That policy only applies to those users who are too new on WP to know better than to engage in actions which - for a more long-time user - may otherwise be considered egregrious breaches of wiki etiquette. User:Cantors shows every sign of not being a newcomer. jglc | t | c 20:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • My objection is not to the name itself, but to the fact that it, along with User:Rabbis and User:Professor Kaufman, are sockpuppets of User:Merlinzor's, and all of which were chosen specifically to establish unwarranted authority on the subject of the various VfD's in which this malicious user has been involved. Tomer ^TALK 20:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the pages, but the user name is fine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreasonable use of the cur database. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it is on one user page, I do not have any problems with it. But on three or four, that is a problem to me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you all fail to realize is that there are three organizations that are really upset with what you have been doing. We have had board meetings regarding your insistance on deleting any mention of the Papal meeting, or its participants. The fact that we were in touch with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon leading up to the meeting, apparently means nothing to you. Your actions of eliminating all references to the one event deemed one of the most highly important events in Judeo-Christian history by both the Israeli government as well as the Vatican is quite odd. It has angered three organizations, The Jewish Ministers Cantors Assn, the American Seminary for Cont. Judaism, and Pave the Way Foundation. We collectively feel a terrible injustice has been done by your organization. There was an historical event that took place on January 18, 2005, where a sitting Pope (John Paul II) was visited for the first time in history by 141 very grateful Jewish clergy, who wished to thank him for everything he had done for the Jewish people and for the State of Israel. The event was reported across the country in many publications, as well as the Vatican newspaper, The New York Times, and was covered on Italian television. We inserted a paragraph into your encyclopedia, and your editors have consistently chosen to eliminate all mention of this event from any article that had contained it. They also removed bios of Cantor Victor Beck, President of the Jewish Ministers Cantors Assn, Cantor Eliezer Kepecs, Vice President elect of the JMCA, Gary Krupp, President of Pave the Way Foundation and others who were deemed important to this event and other events. Upon trying to reason with these ill informed editors, that this event was extremely important in Judeo-Christian developments, endorsed by the former Pope himself, the Israeli government, and Cantors and Rabbis worldwide, they choose to ignore it and have erased all mention of it from your encyclopedia, thereby altering important history. In addition they have erased all mention of the participants, and the one who brought us there- Gary Krupp, knighted by the Pope, and President and founder of Pave the Way Foundation. The remarks in the discussion pages, that your editors make about Rabbis and Cantors, are not only incorrect, but are on the verge of lible, such as "There is no such thing as Jewish clergy", and "Rabbis and Cantors are just lay-people, who are not ordained clergymen." Voting on deleting our user page User:Cantors, and all its associated pictures, stating this user name is offensive, is a violation of our civil rights and liberties. You have also written that the event and its participants were not notable. We are extremely upset at all these deletions, consistently signifying religious discrimination against Jews, Rabbis, and Cantors. In addition an encyclopedia which makes the claim that everyone can edit it, is misrepresentative of what is really going on in its pages. Many people, from various organizations have been offended by this act. We have had board meetings and discussed the possible solutions to the problem at hand. We would like you to right the injustices that have been done to many by your institution. You should reverse the injustices that your editors have done. We appeal to you now on a colleageate level. Thank you, -Respectfully submitted, Reverend Cantor Gary Buchwald, Secretary JMCA; Reverend Cantor Tyrone Bauer, board JMCA; Reverend Cantor Leslie Rimer, Treasurer JMCA; Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck, President JMCA; Reverend Cantor Michael Trachtenberg, Treasurer elect JMCA; Reverend Cantor Ben Matis, board JMCA, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Reverend Cantor David Montefiore, President elect JMCA; Reverend Cantor Eliezer Kepecs, Vice President elect JMCA, Faculty and board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Reverend Cantor Yehuda Rossler, board JMCA; Reverend Cantor Ofer Barnoy, board JMCA; Reverend Steven Blitz; Reverend George Henschel; Rabbi Aron Griver, Board JMCA, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Rabbi Harvey Weil, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Robert E. Cohen, Dean American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Gary Krupp, President Pave the Way Foundation; Mark Morris, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Mona Morris, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Michael Baum, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Michael Eisenstein, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Melissa Wind; Gary Laveman; Lillian Kessler. (Statement by 24.185.97.194, whose only edits are to this and related pages.)

• a violation of our civil rights and liberties, eh? Wikipedia is not your personal web host. I didn't participate in any of the deletion discussions for any of the other articles, and I'm not sure how I feel about bios about the various rabbis, cantors, etc. and the notability of the event itself, but using user space in this manner is against Wikipedia policy. Worse still, taking this tone with the community – that we have "angered" several people/organizations (and by implication, we should be concerned about said anger), that incorrect statements of fact by some editors somehow constitute lible [sic], and that your civil rights are somehow violated by having your work deleted from an open-content, collaborative encyclopedia – is actually quite offensive to me. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

We never meant to be offensive to you, but what you have done to us, is quite offensive. - User:24.185.97.194, 23:00, June 20, 2005 (UTC)

But your wasting our time Annon with the Cantor cruft mess. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. One would think that with all of those names in play that a "Comment" by an anonymous user would seem a bit unseemly. A Userpage and a User talk page may provide for more opportunity for the community to discuss this issue. There is, of course, no requirement to establish a Userpage but my observations suggest that comunication flows more freely with a registered User than with an anonymous contributor. hydnjo talk 01:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In an effort to put an end to the claims being made by the anonymous editsquad, I have sent the following email to vbeck_company@yahoo.com:

Subject: Greetings
Hello Cantor Beck,
I would like to inquire whether or not you are aware of the ongoing activities on Wikipedia by an editor (possibly more than one) claiming to be representing you at times, and at other times claiming to represent organizations with which you are involved. I'm just looking for a "yes" or "no". If you require more information, please let me know.
Thanks in advance,
Tomer Shiloach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TShilo12

I'll be sure to post any response I get. Tomer ^TALK 02:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • I got a response, which follows:

Hello Tomer Shiloach,

I was made aware of the site and of the article placed there about me. This was done without consultation with me, but since I am a public figure I didn't give it much thought. No more so than the hundreds of newspaper articles that appear each year. I did check it out out of curiosity, and was appalled at the comments being made by some of the so called editors. I decided to try and correct some misconceptions which were being voiced and was attacked so vituperatively, and was accused of some remarkable things, that I decided that it was beneath my dignity to slosh around in the filth that was being spread. I really didn't need these so called editors to validate my life's work. That job is being done by those who actually know the value of what I have done and what I do. More importantly, when I am finally called upon to answer the question, "...have I been the Me that I could have been... I am hoping that I will honestly be able to say yes. It is to that goal that I guide my life's work.

As for others who claim to be me or to speak for me, I neither know nor care to know anything about it. If they are saying anything in a positive vein, I can only assume that they are as disgusted by the manner in which I was treated as I was, and are trying, in good conscience to fight my battle for me. Until proven otherwise I will assume that this is the case, just as I am assuming that your information request was genuine. I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

If you wish any other information, please feel free to write to me. By the way you might tell the self rightous fool ish editor who posted what he thought was my home phone number, that he has caused some poor little old lady in Tuscon, Arizona to become ill and disconnect her phone due to all the harrassing phone calls she was getting at all hours of the day and night. The Tuscon police were at a loss to explain it, but I'm told that they are investigating.

Eventually we all have to answer for our actions,

Kol Tuv,

Cantor Victor Beck

Tomer ^TALK 05:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • One wonders how you know, if it's not your phone number, that people have been calling "at all hours of the day and night" and what the status of the supposed police investigation is -- assuming that anyone has been calling, of course. I also have to wonder why someone who lives in Tucson doesn't even know how to spell the name of the city. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, the phone number has been been removed from here, but we need to check the edit history to see who added it and any sources cited. (BTW, I am in Casa Grande, AZ now, passed by Tuscon earlier today, nice place.) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The phone number was listed on a VfD and on a VfU, by me, there's no need to go checking to see who put it out there. I cited my source as whitepages.com. I also posted Cantor Beck's email address, which I got from his website. Both are either public (telephone #) or public domain (website) information. As for misspelling Tucson as "Tuscon", that appears to be an Arizona habit, as both Cantor Beck and Zscout370 have now both done it. :-D Incidentally, I couldn't help but notice the veiled legal threat in Cantor Beck's email, which is similar to the similar threat made by User:Rabbis a week or so ago. That said, it should be noted that Cantor Beck made no mention of any involvement by the organizations with which he is involved, which are cited by Merlinzor as being involved in writing these vanity pages. Tomer ^TALK 15:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Oops. Well, I am not in AZ now, but sorry about the goof. Also, can the legal threat posted by Rabbis be reproduced here for all to see (for comparison sake?) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • That is the rationale given by RickK here [6] for this block, which was apparently as a result of this edit: [7]. Tomer ^TALK 00:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Let me get this straight. You think that is perfectly appropriate for this Wikipedia to have duplicate articles such as User:Cantors and User:Merlinzor. If your position is that you may present a User or an Article under various Names then the community may present some opposition. A User is a User, not a User with as many names as he/she chooses. This is referred to as sockpuppetry and is discouraged. Please choose a Username so that your arguments will be more respected. hydnjo talk 02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is obvious that articles are not "respected" regardless of whether a username is applied or not. --Merlinzor 13:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Another suggestion: If this is getting too much, then could we shoot on sight any cantor-cruft that appears on here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We've wasted enough time on this nonsense already. Gamaliel 05:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• User:Cantors was blocked from making any changes to the article that you see here. In order to continue making edits, and continue refining the bio, we had to move the article to another location- this time, my userpage, which you are now attacking as well. Don't you ever stop attacking?? --Merlinzor 13:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Refine the bio"? Reaquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs and its subsequent Request for Undeletion (the last version of the page before delisting can be found here): if Kepecs (probably, that is, you) wants an article Kepecs is going to have to actually do something noteworthy enough to earn one. Unless something dramatic happens in his life, Kepecs is not getting an article here, and since Wikipedia is not a webhosting service, putting pseudo-articles on the talk pages is not permitted, either. Don't like? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Do you mean to say that Krupp, Kepecs, and Beck never did anything noteworthy? You deleted all of them. Especially Krupp, a papal knight, who meets regularly with the Pope and flies back and forth from Israel to Rome to the US, trying to bring the world peacefully together. Krupp, who arranged the papal meeting of 141 Jewish clergy. Krupp, a Jew, who is like an ambassador to the Vatican and who founded an organization that deals with this. In addition the papal event itself was completely deleted from your pages. --Merlinzor 15:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, so they met the Pope. Thousands upon thousands did so, but they do not have articles on here. Just because it means something to you does not mean it means something to us. I made Eagle Scout, but that does not entitle me to get an article on here. Plus, not every papal meeting is noteworthy at all. If you want a webpage to talk about all of this, that is your call. But on here, we have decided time and time again that the pages should be deleted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In 100 years, history will show whether or not their meeting was noteworthy. The point is that it isn't sufficiently noteworthy for Wikipedia. Regardless of how much Krupp flies around the world, that's not an indicator of encyclopædicity. He is not like an ambassador to the Vatican, as ambassadors represent governments. Not only does Krupp represent noöne but the non-profit he founded, but Krupp is not a leader in any Jewish community, in fact he is widely regarded as at best misguided, at worst as a prophet of apostasy. The deletion of the papal event itself was a result of the fact that you insisted upon text that effectively said that the meeting of 141 Jewish leaders with the Pope was the most significant occurrence in Jewish history since the construction of Solomon's Temple. I have no problem with mentioning the event in the appropriate article, and ONLY in the appropriate article , but the wording upon which you have persistently insisted is not appropriate for WP (which is why some editors have taken to calling it "cantor-cruft"). Tomer ^TALK 16:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "We've wasted enough time on this nonsense already" © Gamaliel. - Sikon 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs

I'm confused. Would there be objection to this content in the Article Namespace rather than in the User Namespace? What is objectionable, the what or the where (or both)? hydnjo talk 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You did see this, right? Overwhelming consensus to delete, discounting socks – I count 14 delete votes out of 20 total legitimate ones, and I have a feeling the consensus would be even greater if a new vote were to be done. AиDя01D;TALKEMAIL 21:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I obviously missed it (I'm embarrassed to to say in front of the entire community). Feel free to take down this section as you see fit. :-( hydnjo talk 22:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was been redirected. —Xezbeth 20:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

BP Village

There is no proposed stadium called BP Village replacing Busch Stadium. The new stadium being built in St. Louis for the Cardinals will also be called Busch Stadium. There is also no evidence that there was ever a proposed stadium called BP Village to replace Busch Stadium. This page should be deleted and a page should be created for the new Busch Stadium.

• Comment True the stadium will still be called Busch stadium, but according to stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com, there is going to be a place called BP or Ballpark Village, "the new "Ballpark Village," a $300-million mixed-use development. The project promises to blend restaurants, entertainment venues, residential units and office spaces all with a unique flavor that is strictly St. Louis." Maybe merge or add this BP Village to the new Busch Stadium page? Srcrowl 07:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 07:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what JamesBurns said. (Again). --W(t) 13:28, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a proposal, not a fact, with no discussion. We don't know what the mixed uses will be, for they do not exist yet. When it is built (not when it is building) will be the time for an article. Geogre 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. When I made this page, I thought I would put it here for the mixed use development, but you know, just blank the page instead of putting up a deletion notice first. I had to revert a blanking. (Actually, BP Village was in All-Star Baseball for the XBox, and this leads one to believe it is real.) Delete. --WikiFan04^{ß 17:23, 18 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• Update. I have redirected BP Village to New Busch Stadium. --WikiFan04^{ß 17:41, 18 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

CrasH (name)

Looks like a vanity page for an aspiring filmmaker; he's won some small awards, but frankly, it's not exactly the Cannes, is it? The only Google hits I could get were for his own "CrasH & the Fury" website. None of this establishes notability; claims like "his theological treatise works have been raved by the academic community, especially considering that as of this entry, he has yet to finish earning his bachelor's degree, yet already writes like a doctoral student" should really be substantiated... and I don't think they can be. Also user's first edits, discounting the addition he made to the Crash disambiguation page. Captain Disdain 03:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 07:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article is vanity, and vague at that. Srcrowl 08:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with all that praise, it's obvious vanity. --Etacar11 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Stingray droid sub

Crystal-ball gazing, with a possible future invention by a youngster. Thought I admire his initiative, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Grutness...wha? 04:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOR and Crystal ball. — mark ✎ 10:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 'tis but a fiction. --Scimitar 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Aw, how cute. DELORTED!!! StopTheFiling 23:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jhae and Bumba (rapper)

nn, Google for "rapper jhae bumba" yields 8 hits. though at least these people DO exist. Marblespire 04:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: oh, there IS an article for Jhae's pal. I was fooled by the incomplete redir. Please to vote on both. ~Mbsp 09:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete web cruft at best. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, notability not established. JamesBurns 08:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable, vanity, WP:MUSIC not met. jglc | t | c 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. Puberty is a disease, and this kind of vanity/fantasy is a symptom. Geogre 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Patrick Artel

Google does not recognise. Truly a terrible, unencyclopedic article SqueakBox 04:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Altavista comes up with this, from which we learn that he has made several films that IMDB has never heard of. The article is badly written, but that at least can be fixed.

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/possible attack page: "He was a shy skinny kid with braces and big crooked nose.He became a delinquent child and a low grade student and he was bullied alot in schools and often ridiculed by his classmate.He was often kicked out from many highschool for his pranks and deliquent manner.He would suffered many pain and operation to correct his facial features thru out his life." - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per MgM. — mark ✎ 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. the wub (talk) 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teenage vanity, I just rv-ed it from blanking. --Etacar11 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: He's 30, so he's not a teen, alas. Just a vanity article. Geogre 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Truly a si$k gangsta mofo.--64.229.218.142 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for absolute non-notablity. --Lord Voldemort 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --WikiFan04^{21:55, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

Coding by exception

Looks to be a newly coined phrase. 8 Google hits: 3 are archives of a Usenet article, 3 are mirrors of a Sun Microsystems article. I would think that a common coding practice would have significantly more hits. --Xcali 04:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Looks like a reasonable article about an anti-pattern that really exists. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Try also: "programming by exception" (>100 Google hits). There may be a better term for this, I can't recall at the moment. --Tabor 07:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When you add in "code by exception" and "program by exception", you get a few hundred more ... --Tabor 07:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to "Programming by exception". - Sikon 08:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 08:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into software engineering. That article is pretty comprehensive but doesn't seem to mention this explicitly. I'm not familiar with the title of this article (and I know my software engineering) so it could well be a neologism, or something used in some lecture notes in a Uni somewhere, either of which would qualify it for mergetion. Regrettably, this is the way that much software is written, so this material should definitely be in the 'pedia somewhere.-Splash 12:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into software engineering and redirect. --W(t) 13:29, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep. We've got articles on many other software anti-patterns. In any case, software engineering is not the place to merge it. --Carnildo 20:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mt. Gigantic

fairly NN band vanity Denni☯ 05:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete Artorius 05:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 08:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. the wub (talk) 12:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete they had one record out two years ago, they are on allmusic for that. But I'm not sure they really reach the bar of notability. --Etacar11 15:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness Co-operative Alliance

All 6 google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Non-verifiable. func(talk) 05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertsing for a non notable alliance. JamesBurns 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a few Jehovah-related VfDs at present. Maybe no one was responding to their doorknocking...Harro5 09:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource as source material. It's not an article. Only relevant google hit I found from the first line of the article was a wikipedia mirror: "Explore religion". - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, don't burden Wikisource with it. the wub (talk) 12:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Check the talk page. It isn't even an actual Jehovah's Witness organization. It seems to be a group of disgruntled former members. --Scimitar 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Update. The user who wrote this page has contributed almost exclusively to Jehovah's Witness related articles- and always to introduce criticisms of the group. That's fine, but it would seem this is his organization (the entry was written in the same month it was founded) and he's using Wikipedia to advertise it. As with all non-notable vanity organizations (regardless of purpose), it should be deleted. --Scimitar 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-verifiable. hydnjo talk 19:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Fire Star 04:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The fairytale

Band vanity. Two demos. SWAdair | Talk 05:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No need for explanations here. Harro5 09:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, overuse of bolding is not going to make this band notable. the wub (talk) 13:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• NYAAAAAAAA delete and recreate as a redirect to fairy tale. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity and the author blanking it says it all. --Etacar11 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Laur Lichtenstein

1 Google hit, and it's a wikimirror. Not notable. --Xcali 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nnanity. — JIP | Talk 06:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete See comments and vote on Lisa Lichtenstein -VfD -Snorre/Antwelm 08:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity, cool word, JIP. :) --Etacar11 15:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I have to agree: "nnanity" is a very cool word, and, unfortunately, it's applicable here. Geogre 19:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 15:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Australian Air League

A very short stub (a substub?), but looks like it's about a notable organisation. The article was tagged as speedy deletion, but I think it deserves a proper VfD. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. "A stub (but with potential)" - Problems that don't require deletion. Weak keep, because it's my first time voting, but so it goes. The Literate Engineer 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A national organisation founded in 1934 and with Governor-Generals as patrons. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has been placed on my desk and I shall expand it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus --cesarb 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chung Tat-chi

The person is far from being significant to be included in wikipedia. Small potato 06:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, maybe if he won all those contests he would be notable, but as it is, no.--Etacar11 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oh baby can you feel the KEEPING???--64.229.218.142 19:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 8 edits, all to VfDs. Hermione1980 00:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What, Chinese math stars are less notable than pokémon? SchmuckyTheCat 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. If we keep articles about every single proffesional sports player we should allow articles on the most talented of math stars. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mathematics is different from sports. A person doesn't become a "star" in mathematics by winning IMO or Putnam, but to conduct great research, as in the cases of Terence Tao or Grigori Perelman. And in terms of legend, there are perfect scorers in IMO every year, those who've solved even the most challenging problem perfectly, and they are certainly much more legendary than this person. --Small potato 10:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Sjakkalle. — Instantnood 10:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Poor little thing, that seems to be the maiden work of a newbie. :'-( -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

weak keep after all that guy is the first Hong Kong participant.

• Delete I won several math olympiads too, so what?  Grue  18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus as a leader of nonviolent resistance

This reads like original research to me. func(talk) 06:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 06:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. - Sikon 07:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 08:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR. — mark ✎ 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:13, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete — agree with above. — RJH 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak merge. If a source can be found for the suggestion that Jesus led the resistance to the Eagles - and weaker hypotheses have been made in print-, that would belong in Josephus on Jesus. Septentrionalis 17:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting idea (if verifiable) which is suggestive of Jesus' and 1st century Judaism's approach to covenant forms, but as it stands this article is so much uninteresting original research. Josephus on Jesus should have enough room left to include anything encyclopaedic that could be said on this subject. Delete. Fire Star 04:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 17:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandon School (GUSD), now moved to Brandon School, Goleta, California

Delete School vanity, there are many Brandon schools in the World, the page already has a redirect, even has recent updated activites for the school that should be included on it's own Website not in Wikipedia. Srcrowl 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Cleanup has been done. Please continue voting but with that in mind.--Member 00:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC), the creator of the article. (Kappa did most of it :) to him!). It wouldn't be appropiate for me to vote.

• elementary school, not notable. Delete Dunc|☺ 08:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for now. This is not an encyclopedia article. But it is always nice to know that a school I've never heard of will dismiss students at 11:45 on June 17. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa has done some cleanup. Merge with Goleta Union School District. If elementary schools are notable it is only at a local level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, failing that merge as above. Kappa 09:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Failing that merge as above. — mark ✎ 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --W(t) 13:30, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Scimitar 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What about the article makes you think it's a vanity page? Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — school information is already merged onto the Goleta Union School District page. — RJH 15:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but a merge is ok too Yuckfoo 17:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep since its being expanded Yuckfoo 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge --Carnildo 20:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or retain the current merge. Merge has already been done but really this is enough for a whole article, I see no reason to appease deletionism when out of 75 school articles listed for deletion in May not one was deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment So because there were no listed deletes that reached concensus to delete it means that no school article should be deleted? I don't think this vote is about appeasing anyone. It is about working to keep the quality of all articles at a high level. Vegaswikian 06:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the school district article. A lot of the actual content is more about the district itself than the school, so it seems a good fit. JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete - I'm glad the article Goleta Union School District exists, I felt kinda bad voting to delete a school I used to live a couple miles away from. :D StopTheFiling 23:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Generously mild keep. —RaD Man (talk) 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Centauri 04:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 04:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone know how people use wiki to look up schools? If they went to this article are they looking for information about the school or about schools in the district? Vegaswikian 05:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The fact that an elementary school is building a multipurpose room might be verifiable, but it is not encyclopedic. --FCYTravis 08:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment A reason I put this up for deletion among others, is that there are many schools in the US/World named Brandon School, how can we allow one school to take the control of the name, and not allow others? What if another Brandon school comes along, and changes all of the information to match their school information? I do agree with merging with the school district article, but the school itself shouldn't be able to hold sole possesion of the name Brandon School or any other school for that matter, IMHO. Srcrowl 01:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If anything, Brandon School should be made into a disambiguation page. However, this concern should not have been a reason for listing the page on VfD. Bad names can be fixed without resorting to deletion. Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. We use a technique called disambiguation. A page doesn't have to have the same name all its life (I moved this one to Brandon School, Goleta, California). There is no need to call for articles to be deleted because you think they may have the wrong name, just press the move button or go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the instructions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. – ugen64 01:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. Vegaswikian 06:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools in Wikipedia. Notable, NPOV, verifiable. Unfocused 05:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, elementary school, has done nothing noteworthy or newsworthy. If no one in other parts of the country has heard of the school, it's not notable. And that's the case with this one. --Idont Havaname 23:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've heard of it. Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative, verifiable, NPOV, etc. Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Black Wednesday 2004

POV rant. RickK 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Enochlau 07:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 08:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rant. — mark ✎ 10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps merge the less melodramatic content with Democratic Party (United States) or U.S. presidential election, 2004 - User:Peter Grey 10:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge minus POV stuff to U.S. presidential election, 2004. StopTheFiling 23:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm a liberal and a progressive and I've never heard this term used. So non-notable and POV. Make it go away. --FCYTravis 08:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 04:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PLANNER

An article which consists of basically nothing but references is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 07:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite, also add link to Category:Functional languages. - Sikon 07:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article has been rewritten. Please make further changes as necessary.(preceding unsigned comment by  CarlHewitt 08:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Too many references is better than none at all. Do you have any reason to delete based on the subject of the article? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Prolog appears to be descended from this language. Kappa 09:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it isn't. Prolog is a logical programming language, and Planner is a derivative of Lisp, a functional programming language. - Sikon 09:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, but please clarify if it's called PLANNER or Planner. Radiant_>|< 09:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• It shold be Planner because it is not an acronymn.CarlHewitt 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Planner is citation 13 as a predecessor in Kowalski's paper "A Proof Procedure using Connection Graphs"CarlHewitt 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Just because Micro Planner was implemented in Lisp and used Polish prefix parenthesis syntax does not mean that Planner was a functional programming language. The Popler implementation of Planner was not written in Lisp.CarlHewitt 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Any additional questions, comments, or suggestions?CarlHewitt 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten article; PLANNER (or is it Planner?) is of significant historical importance in AI programming history. -- The Anome 10:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article, as per Anome. JamesBurns 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but is it PLANNER or Planner? the wub (talk) 13:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's just redirect Planner to PLANNER. - Sikon 16:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • PLANNER seems to be more common Pburka 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NSR 14:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly an influential project. --FOo 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep rewritten article Pburka 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Clearly of encyclopediac value. As CarlHewitt says, it should be moved to Planner, but this can be done when the VfD is done. --- Charles Stewart
• Keep recognized this one just by looking at the title.  Grue  18:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Encyclopedic topic. Even if first version was all references, it clearly has been able to grow into a fuller article. Hewitt POV needs some tempering with other POVs, but is still valuable. --Macrakis 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very important topic in history of AI, many of these ideas have been reinvented since BruceAnderson 03:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The history is important and needs to be recorded as it is often mis-stated or misunderstood (witness some of these comments.) Certainly Planner and the surrounding arguments about procedures vs. logic caused an upheaval in AI. It might be nice to have a more technical article as well, but don't delete this. BTW, Planner wasnt (isnt?) a functional language, and its influence on the creation of Prolog was peripheral but nontrivial. The full history is complicated and deserves a monograph. Pat Hayes

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 29 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Mark Moore

Seems like a vanity article, as there is no noteable infromation in it —Kjammer 07:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations on the job! Delete, vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure: new Headmaster of a very famous Public School, currently senior teacher at another one. Not sure on this one. (It should also be pointed out that we have other articles on Headmasters of Public Schools.) James F. (talk) 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ... and what does that say? Always nice to know what others are saying. James F. (talk) 10:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. And yes, delete. --W(t) 13:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • As a corollary to that, I'm still waiting for the all hell that was supposed to break loose when we kept Genesis 1:1 (or Genesis 1:2 or any other verse that's been on VfD recently). -- Jonel | Speak 02:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • heh... delete! UkPaolo 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep headmasters if we're going to keep schools. RickK 04:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn  Grue  18:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Important man for an important school.

  unsigned vote by User:Williamhansonhmgn - his 7th edit)  Grue  07:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep WHy should the current head have a page and not the new one - he will be there in a few months.

  unsigned vote by User:62.231.155.4 - his 5th edit  Grue  07:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - needs some work for sure - but this is a major public school and the chap obviously has something about him. A curate's egg 14:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 14:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC) [Second vote see above - 16 June]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Les Pantin

Nonsense. Hoax. RickK 07:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Died from baguette sorting injuries" seems to sum up the article pretty well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete obvious nonsense. You've made me lose my apetite for baguettes :(. Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep - 5 votes to keep, 3 to merge, 3 to delete (counting the nominator as a 'delete' vote). At best, no consensus. A merge might be advised. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Yuthura Ban

Minor character, only met briefly during the game. Most of the article is information about how the player can interact with that character. The Bio should probably be merged with Minor villains in Star Wars. - Sikon 07:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, informative and detailed article. Kappa 09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too big to merge. NSR 09:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If all the information in the entry is true, the character is obviously not met only briefly. Is this verifiable? (i.e. is it C-canon?) jglc | t | c 16:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Minor characters in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic or something similar, per WP:FICT. This character never appears in any of the movies, is that correct? So this is just video-game-cruft, and only a minor character within that context. Most of the article is unencyclopedic game-play information. No significance outside the game's context; contrast against the frequent citations of Chewbacca Defense in discussions of court trials. Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide, and removing the content that belongs only in a gamers' guide leaves a one-line substub that should be merged. Barno 20:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the appropriate "minor characters" article. Most of this article is a game guide, and should be deleted. --Carnildo 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into something like Barno suggests. Thunderbrand 20:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete cruft not worth keeping even as a sub of some other page. SchmuckyTheCat 04:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I think stuff this detailed belongs on the Star Wars wiki, and a stub-sized thing, well, it's already here. --Yar Kramer 05:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Article is possibly too big to merge. JamesBurns 06:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Esrum-hillerup

BJAODN about a non-existent composer from here. Eidas Yelnats is Stanley Sadie (editor of New Grove) backwards. My vote is for speedy. RobertG ♬ talk 08:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio. Alledgedly it was a spoof entry in Grove's Dictionary. JamesBurns 10:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. "Grove Music Online" has an article on spoof articles there and in other musical dictionaries. Apparently Grove's has had two spoof articles, "Esrum-Hellerup, Dag Henrik" and "Baldini, Guglielmo". These should perhaps be mentioned in Nihilartikel and the names made into redirects there. Uppland 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Ruminations

An ad for an e-book, complete with immense copyvio'd review in the original version. I wikified it and was going to give it the benefit of the doubt until I found Robert D. Wilson from the same contributor. (The latter's technically a copyvio, too, but I rather suspect both were posted by the author.) --Cryptic (talk) 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 10:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --W(t) 13:33, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nerdgasm

Neologism. 757 google hits. --Cryptic (talk) 08:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologasm... er... ism. Neologism. Nestea 12:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because Nestea is having a nerdgasm over this vfd. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes! Deleting things off Wikipedia explodes in an eruption of massive positivity and excitement within me! [/sarcasm] Nestea 17:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh dang. He just pulled a Slashdot all up in here! [/Slashdot] jglc | t | c 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • ... That's a Slashdot? I never knew that before! Never went to that site. Nestea 00:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neolojism (and an infellacitous one at that). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neil Mallender

Vanity. Delete. Proto 09:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Thanks Proto. --Bonalaw 11:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity AlexR 11:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, there's been a picture uploaded for this page, too, and I don't know what to do about that. Please could someone clever sort it out. Proto 12:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a notable Neil Mallender, a former county cricketer who played two tests for England and is now umpire (coincidentally, he also lived in both the UK and New Zealand). See [8]. This ain't him, but it might be worth writing a stub about the cricketer. Grutness...wha? 12:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Also, User:Supersaiyanplough vandalised this VfD page, and falsely signed someone elses (User:Big al kicks ass) signature to it. Are we supposed to report vandalism of this sort somewhere? linas 16:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, i wasnt vandalising this page, but removing vandalism from that other page. User:Big al kicks ass posted his comment that should have been on this page on the page Neil Mallender itself, instead of here, so i moved it and added his sig. Sorry if i offended you. Should I put it back? Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 06:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK, you should have copied it to the talk page instead of here, and prefaced it with something that said "I removed the following from the article" and signed your name to it. linas 15:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 04:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mathew Kenneally

Autobiographical tone, and what little claims to notability there are aren't bourne out by a google search. --Cryptic (talk) 09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity and or Hoax. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's one of a bunch by a rather prolific hoax author that we've just noticed. Ambi 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- hoax. - Longhair | Talk 10:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep -- Jamesss 13:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • These two users seem only interested in VfD and pages up for deletion. --Etacar11 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Matthewleung87's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep 203.54.191.128
• comment203.54.191.128 have you tried art chat rooms. This guy sounds really niche market?
• Keep Fargomargo This is the kind of art that is shut out of the mainstream dudes, i say support it!!
• KeepKman http://forums.delphiforums.com/NinthArt/messages?lgnJR=1
• Delete - sockpuppets attack! Proto 14:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "My sockpuppet-sense is tingling!" (Spider-man) Delete. jglc | t | c 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gahhhhh! --Habap 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, supported by sock-puppets. Will no one ever realize how self-defeating they are?? --Etacar11 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Soh-soh-soh-sockpuppetry. Nestea 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep u douchbags im on t a sockpuppet i have mah own opinion.--64.229.218.142 20:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax with a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 20:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – too, too fabu for BJAODN. Love it! --Mothperson 00:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Pburka 03:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sockpuppet limit has been reached. RickK 04:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep having spoken to some friends of mine, they assure me this is worth keeping. I agree wholeheartedly- 'Hotpants 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP BLOCKING PEOPLE- this is hotpants, having moved all the way over to the computer next to me in a lab full of computers. Listen, if people were trying to circumvent your system with sock puppets, they would have a hell of a lot more votes for keep. People are just getting their friends, like me, to vote with them after giving them reasons of various persuasions. You are encouraging people to circumvent your system by blocking them whenever they vote keep. It's absurd. I don't understand how your complaint process works, but you are not doing yourself any favours here. These computers MAY havw a shared IP due to people posting via the same ANU gateway (Ambi should know). I fail to see how this is a violation, stop arbitarily deleting people.

Comment: There's a page for people like you. WP:DBAD. Go read. -- Longhair | Talk 07:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax, too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment- long hair, get a hair cut- person whose chair just got taken for 5 minutes- 'TagTeam 07:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• Keep too, and stop blocking my buddies. I mean, let's look at it this way, either hotpants and I are lying, or we are somehow ablt to procure dozens of computers REALLY quick. You stop blocking people aimlessly, I'll stick to just getting real people and not using each of the several hundred computers within 1 minutes walk. You play fair, so will we. And let's cut the silly insults, huh long hair?- 'TagTeam 07:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1st Warning You have blatantly violated this boards policies by indefinitely blocking anyone who votes keep for any of the threads a bunch of my friends started. Remove them immedietely. You have no grounds for doing so, and if you can't believe that we know 10 people who would vote for this then you are crazy. I expect those IP's, particularly the one belonging to my buddy hotpants here, unfrozen immedietely. If you won't play by the rules, don't expect us to either- 'TagTeam 08:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• Delete this hoax. Also, BJAODN this hilarious sockpuppetfest of a VFD. Scott5114 08:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it- It think that unless someone has any arguments for WHY it must be deleted which are incredibly persuasive, it must stay. What are we coming to when the word of a newbie is worth less than any other poster? I haven't seen anything persuasive to make me think otherwise yet- 'Freezer 09:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as their appears to be some funny business going on with vote tallying I record it again to make sure- 'Freezer 09:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'

Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Habap 13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and keep blocking - vanity, possible self-advertising, large amount of sockpuppets, threats of vandalism. Admits to recruiting other to vote, althought may be just one guy promoting himself - Skysmith 10:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now hold on! How is any one of us going and asking other people to vote sock puppeting? We are simply getting other concerned internet posters, some who may have used this site without ever wanting to make a change, for years to post. IF anything, we are strengthening the site by involving more people. They simply have a different point of view to you right now. Someone convincing friends to vote for them is no more wrong than you convincing your buddies on this board to vote for deletion, the difference being we don't stick up sock puppet pictures and launch baseless accusations at people. Most of these posts up for deletion have no reasoning beyond "not on google, kill it"- 'TagTeam 10:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppet#"Meatpuppets". --Cryptic (talk) 10:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that someone has never posted before is not evidence that they are ONLY coming here for that one purpose. This thread may be the first one they've seen, and go on to inspire many more. Nor can the motives of these friends be known, especially if you don't ask them. Maybe we need to have a sub-committee and an investigation to sort this whole mess out- 'TagTeam 11:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Habap 13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. K1Bond007 22:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Passing this kind of nonsense through a voting process is a technique for ensuring that it gets the fullest coverage and wastes maximal time. Thus it contributes to the hoax project's success. --Wetman 22:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 17:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GamerWiki

Largely an external link. The site has Alexa rank 1,493,174 and one inbound link. --Cryptic (talk) 09:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete website advertisement. JamesBurns 11:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, website spam. the wub (talk) 11:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Computer and video games to suit List of wikis. Nestea 12:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, remove from List of wikis, it's not a list of all wikis. --W(t) 13:34, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Matty Pop Chart

Was marked as {{delete}} but it does not quite qualify for speedy deletion because it could be at least considered a vanity / self-promotion article. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Give the guy a break, at least for a few days. The article is not offensive and hasn't even been up for a day. If the article still appears to be a self-promoting shell in a week, then consider deletion.RussellG 09:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 11:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 13:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. --FCYTravis 09:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 17:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Focus Week

A high school event. Surely this is too granular for an individual article, and as most of its contents are a quotation from the linked web site, there's no need to redirect from here. --Cryptic (talk) 09:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 11:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 13:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

""Delete"" says JoJo, Focus sucks! 'JoJo 13:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Delete per Cryptic's reasoning. --Habap 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 10:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vibration white finger

I am very upset with wikipedia admin, how are they allowed to say something is patent nonsense just because it has silly name? Do they have knowledge of every subject in exist? I doubt it, they should be forced to search google before being allowed to delete stuff with no vote! i think it is disgust. I recreate perfectly good stub twice and both times it is patent nonsese deleted by RickK and CesarB. well you are idiots, because it is real. Myabe if i put it on vfd you will have to spend the 10 seconds to put it in google and see the two hiundred thousand hits it gets. that is not bad for patent nonsese hey? keep the article, and delete the admins who delete without checking.

• keep I'm a nice admin, I've heard of it, though it may be known under another name elsewhere. 09:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • NB though to be fair the original article did meet the speedy criteria as being a practically useless substub. Dunc|☺ 09:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Original article was "vibration white finger turns fingers white and numb, miners get it. welsh miners sue the government if they get it". Could have been cleaned up rather than speedied. Kappa 10:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the right place to bring this up would have been Votes for Undeletion. the wub (talk) 11:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It would have stayed deleted at votes for undeletion, because the only evidence would have been the original article. Kappa 11:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: References to medical journals or websites will help to raise the believability of the article. With 200,000 claimed hits that shouldn't be much of a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note actual Google hit count is 674, and at least some of those are about a band of the same name. It's definitely real, but nowhere near the 200K hits claimed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • In what sense is the google count which attempts to exlude similar pages the only "actual google count"? Kappa 13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The way I see it, if Google doesn't feel that it needs to include duplicate results in its searches, I see no reason to disagree with them. I've tried looking through the duplicate results before, there's never anything good in there. For example, if I look for all Google results for my own name, including the duplicates, it gives me dozens of pages of GeoURL results lists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Raynaud's Disease Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded it. The number of google hits isn't the key thing, it's the importance of the hits that are there. Average Earthman 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like it could be related to Repetitive Strain Injury and could be merged. Just a thought, I remain ambivalent at this time. -- WCFrancis 17:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It isn't (apart from them being workplace injuries affecting the fingers). RSI is from the individual repeating the same movement, this is a consequence of vibrating machinery causing blood flow restriction. This should be clear from the article, I'd hope (since I rewrote it). Average Earthman 08:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be a notable workplace injury. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How many other articles are being incorrectly speedy deleted by administrators? I am glad this user brought this to our attention, please contact me so I can help if administrators are deleting valid articles. --ShaunMacPherson 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I do not think I was wrong on speedy deleting it as nonsense. The way it was written the first time ("vibration white finger turns fingers white and numb, miners get it. welsh miners sue the government if they get it.") makes no sense without extra context. In fact, if I saw an article like that again, I believe I would delete it exactly the same way. And even if it couldn't be considered nonsense, it could still be speedy deleted as WP:CSD criteria A1: a very short article with little or no context. That all said, keep as it now makes sense and has context. --cesarb 23:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Good work Earthman. JamesBurns 06:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A valid medical complaint --StoatBringer 23:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus (Chung Tat-chi vote also taken into account).  Grue  29 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Tse Chi-yung

This person is not important enough to be in wikipedia. Small potato 09:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like vanity. JamesBurns 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 13:36, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Sjakkalle's comment at WP:VFD/Chung Tat-chi. — Instantnood 11:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Small potato 03:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 04:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tim Caddey

Hoax -- Longhair | Talk 10:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Insistance that it is a hoax but no real evidence provided. I will leave this to those who hopefully know what they're talking about. -- RussellG 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I happen to know the subject personally, and I guarantee that everything in this article is complete and utter nonsense. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it - he doesn't have a single hit in Google. Ambi 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, I yield to those in the know. -- RussellG 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a hoax because it isn't true, and because Caddey and Robertson are both just normal uni students. They may become these things in the future, but they certainly haven't yet. Ambi, the ANU student. 10:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• You know well the Caddster is beyond google searches "ambi" (JoJo)

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete taking Ambi's word for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Caddey is a well known Australian journalist. I'm afraid the day wikipedia deletes pages because an administrator claims to know the subject, or we 'take someone's word for it' is the day it loses its raison d'etre.

Unsigned vote above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepFatcatlebron
• Delete User:JoJo is a nonsense/spam artist, so no reason to believe anything he writes. --Habap 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hey what do you know- sockpuppets coming to defend an article- this makes me want to vote, oh how was it I voted when last I saw sockpuppets- Delete --Scimitar 15:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article and sockpuppets Columbia 15:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/possible hoax, not to mention the sockpuppets. --Etacar11 16:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable and/or nonverifiable, the book mentioned in the article is not known to copac.ac.uk (combined catalogue of UK libraries). Jitse Niesen 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The key factor is that normal rules cannot apply when we're talking the C man. Besides, just ask him, he'll tell you don't mess with the big gun- 'Hotpants 07:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppetry essentially admitting it's a joke ("C man," et al.). --FCYTravis 09:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense backed up by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- I'll give the C-man the benefit of the doubt until I see some evidence presented- 'TagTeam 10:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • It is contributor's job to present evidence that something exists, not the other way around - Skysmith 11:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm reversing my vote to Keep, I've confirmed most these hoax articles using my sophisticated Google searching techniques. Excelsior! AIphax 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit.
  • Above impostor vote actually by AIphax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. No books by a Tim Caddey by any title appear in WorldCat. Gamaliel 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 04:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Higgins

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep 'JoJo 13:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
  • Only VFD contribs, same ones as other sock puppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Jamesss 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only VFD contribs again same ones as other sock puppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All VFD contributions, only. Same as those tended by other sockpuppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppets Proto 14:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Kman
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an obvious hoax. Columbia 15:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/hoax + sockpuppets. --Etacar11 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article, the one on Robertson, Blue Orchid and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In other words, the Wikipedia is critically flawed. That fact is obvious, but this article still has to go ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, never doubt the J man 'Hotpants 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppetry again essentially admitting it's a hoax. --FCYTravis 09:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer' Oh, there... well, delete 'Freezer 09:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - admitted rubbish backed by sockpuppets and pseudo-postmodernist rhetoric- Skysmith 10:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think SkySmith is sounding like "the other"- 'TagTeam 10:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• I'm reversing my vote to Keep, I've confirmed most these hoax articles using my sophisticated Google searching techniques. Excelsior! AIphax 19:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above impostor vote actually by AIphax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peter Rajic

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. See also his supposed wife Claudia Newman. Dunc|☺ 12:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep 'JoJo 13:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep Be honest, Ambi. Jamesss 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, these votes must be counted (JoJo) 'JoJo 13:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Keep MarissaLeigh Peter Rajic is a subject of many amusment to many political keen beans. His wife is seen as particularly comical, this kind of vandelism is not acceptable, but that is no reason to remove real entires.

Comment: MarissaLeigh's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both the article and the votes here by sockpuppets Columbia 13:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Columbia is a sock puppet!- 'JoJo 14:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Keep Alexdowner We do have politicans in Australia you know!
  • Two edits made by this user, same as those made by Jojo and others. Obvious sockpuppetry. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ...and more energy wasted; what a pity Lectonar 14:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete JoJo needs to find another hobby. --Habap 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• These are not the sockpuppets you're looking for. Delete. jglc | t | c 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified + sockpuppets. --Etacar11 16:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax; see a list of SA MPs Septentrionalis 17:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Annoying trollishness. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep having spoken to some friends of mine, they assure me this is worth keeping. I agree wholeheartedly- 'Hotpants 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. --FCYTravis 09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish backed by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hotpants tells me via e-mail that he can swear to the veracity of these claims, but not in a court as Peter Rajic is his Priest- 'TagTeam 10:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• Delete - Hoax. Of the list of VfDed vanity/hoax articles that JoJo and "friends" are supporting, at least three (Peter Rajic, Julia Fetherston/Fetherstone, James (H.) Robertson) appear together in this PDF at act.gov.au (google cached), which refers to them as "young people" who were involved with a 2002 InterACT conference in Australia. That could be a coincidence, sorry if it's old news. Question: was this Uncyclopedia article written by somebody from here in frustration over this VfD dispute, or was it written by the same author that wrote these hoax articles? That article involves VfD stars James "Cream Puff" Robertson, Peter Rajic, Timothy Horatio Caddey, and James Higgins. I got a kick out of the idea that someone could be permanently banned from the Coconino County Petting Zoo. -Eisnel 07:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tobias Halligan

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep -- Bad ambi! Jamesss 13:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CzechPartisan

Comment: CzechPartisan's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Longhair's comments to other users opinions comes after he has voted himself on a topic, bringing his impartiality into question Jamesss 13:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: My comments correctly point out, this user has never edited, until now, here. -- Longhair | Talk 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• commentFargomargo dudes, any organisation that is based on volunteers shouldn't then say mean stuff about those volunteers.
• Keep Fargomargo

Keep Matthewleung87 14:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Any organisation which is a group on anonymous amatuers shouldn't criticise of defame other anonymous people.- 'JoJo 14:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Delete - sockpuppets attack! Proto 14:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do something about the hoax vandal(and his sockpuppets) Columbia 14:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Uh-oh! These sockpuppets are armed with "weapons-grade Bolognium" (Qubert Farnsworth). Delete jglc | t | c 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the obvious reasons. --Etacar11 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obvious reasons- 'Hotpants 07:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. --FCYTravis 09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Evidence? Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Rubbish backed up by arty sockpuppets. And yes, block them. Burden of proof is not on us - Skysmith 10:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, burden of proof is not on you to show anything at all, just say 3 times "sockpuppets, sockpuppets, sockpuppets" and they shall be banned. I don't think asking for adecent argument/evidence is too much- 'TagTeam 10:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam' oh, and Keep
  • Another believed sockpuppet. Created account today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drowtales

non-notable, possible vanity page. 198.65.161.88 10:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Given anons aren't allowed to vote in RfA's or RfD's, are they allowed to put them up? Shem^(talk) 00:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are allowed to put up VfD's even if their vote doesn't count (and it's not that they are not allowed to vote, it is rather that their vote might not be considered. See the guide for more information). --cesarb 01:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect - Could also be "Make Impartial". I think this is a fair vote, and while some people have most certainly been vandalizing and behaving in a childish manner, it doesn't detract from the arguments that others are making. The page in question is of lower rank, and while it does have fans and interests, I don't believe it can be argued to be notable (note I am not suggesting it is necessarily non-notable either, just that notability is not an argument for preservation here). In addition, there is certainly questionable impartiality on this page that makes it borderline vanity, in my opinion. The whole thing takes place as a description of the fantasy world involved, without any noticeable distance or acknowledgment as such. Things such as comic history, controversies that may have arisen in the past, art style used, etc., seem more appropriate for wiki. A 'Comic Summary' (with an appropriate spoiler warning) should be a section, *not* the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.147.195 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 Jun 2005

• Keep - I have difficulty taking this vote seriously. It's no less notable than anyting else in the Web_comics category. Needs more work to be sure, but not deletion. From what I can tell "198.65.161.88" is a vandal anyway, probably one of the same group that have been vandalising the article due to the "controversy" covered in the articles talk page. --Sherool 11:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Question: does "nay" mean "keep" or "delete"? Please limit your votes to the two options (with "merge" and "redirect" and "cleanup" also acceptable choices), as "nay" could be seen as "negative - delete this" or "no, do not delete". jglc | t | c 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, that means keep, I should have checked how these things work. Edited my first entry to say "keep". --Sherool 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for me. This page has been the target of childish vandals all day yesterday. In fact, I think there's a specific need for a guide like this for this comic, since the official web site is so confusingly laid out. I also question the use of the word "vanity" when it's doubtful to have been written by the artist. --TouchGnome 12:03, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

  User's fourth edit. --cesarb 16:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)'

That was my first entry, and I voted only once. Is there a prohibition against comments? I signed all of my comments. --TouchGnome 20:10, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

No, only that when there are suspicions of sockpuppetery (or someone asking on a forum for everyone to go and vote), comments from new voters and anonymous users don't count. I believe yours is legitimate; looking at your contributions, one can see quite easily that your account, while being new, was not made solely to stuff the ballot here. However, whether it will be counted or not depends on the admin who will close the discussion here. See the guide for more information. --cesarb 21:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame my contributions to other articles aren't visible, as I was a helpful anonymous user before I created an account. But thanks for the relative vote of confidence, despite your "fourth edit" flag which still seems irrelevant. --TouchGnome 23:05, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure about the vanity accusation, but after an Alexa check revealed an Alexa rank of 135,056, it's definitely not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Keep in mind the highly biased results Alexa give. Only people who use Internet Explorer under Windows and have the Alexa toolbar installed are counted. Acording to the sites own counter only about 67% of the users even use Internet Explorer, so Alexa will only give you a unknown fraction of the trafic generated by ~67% of the visitors to the site. --Sherool 22:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but remember that the same applies to every site listed on Alexa. Alexa doesn't count the Firefox(etc.) hits of its #135,056-ranked site, but it also doesn't count the Firefox hits of its #135,055-ranked site, or its #1-ranked site, for that matter. The only way I could see this really making any difference is with sites which are specifically about other browsers. Spreadfirefox.com is probably ranked lower than it should be, for example. Even if we go ahead and assume that Drowtales is a full one-third behind where it should be, it would still only be just barely in the top 100,000... which still isn't really very high. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I can only comment on this, since I made a vote. I know I am not a member of wikipedia, heck I'll be called a "sock puppet". But on the argument of this Alexa, I move that it should not be considered part of validity because it's still only 67% at most, and not even everyone with IE use Alexa. Also, when comparing page results on "Drow" in general on google, Drowtales is still the second on the list to pop up on results. Now take into factor the international audience of the comic as well, and that Alexa is considered a minor search engine when comparing to Google, Yahoo, and even Altavista, though there seem to be a lot of biased for this search engine by some members here. Currently this is the first time I've ever heard of Alexa, and when asking others, only a few knew of it. As an associated webmaster, this comes as a surprise that if this were such a good traffic rating tool, that I never heard of it, in my humble opinion. So my argument on the Alexa results are their true validity to the argument. There are well more websites now then their are people in the world, and being in the top 100K doesn't really matter anymore, once again, in my humble opinion. As for who I am, I'm only a member of Drowtales, member name "Ravinous". That's just incase you are curious so I don't come off completely nameless. --66.82.9.17 16:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -I'm sorry but this page was created by fans of the comic, and not the creator. There was vandalism and attacks on the website for the comic, and when they learned of wikipedia, moved their attacks here when they were blocked from the actual site. I'm sorry enough that they moved this childish act to here. 66.82.9.85 13:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Real IP is 66.82.9.85; probably honest mistake hand-typing the signature. --cesarb 16:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry about that, I found the signature thing second post (Fixed). --66.82.9.63 13:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Andrew Lenahan above and also likely sockpuppets and AnonIP activity. jglc | t | c 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment I suggest reviewing the history for the page before voting one way or the other, or making "sock-puppet" accusations. Additionally, Jason, it's clear from Sherool's comment "Needs more work to be sure, but not deletion." that he meant Keep. --TouchGnome 17:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Comment: All right. Fair enough. Still, as I'm rather unintelligent, it makes it easier to understand a 'keep' or 'delete' ;)

Also, my sockpuppet comment was on the wrong VfD entry; I meant to put it on either the one above or below (both of which have had a lot of disturbance thanks to Sockpuppets). jglc | t | c 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment After carefully reading the Wikipedia guidelines on these subjects, I present the following argument:
  • Wikipedia guidelines on vanity pages indicate that "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." "The most significant problem with vanity pages is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors." Page history shows there are indeed multiple editors making useful contributions.
  • Finally, I see nothing in the Wikipedia candidates for deletion that point to this page being out of place here. Additionally, I notice that the nomination was made by someone without even having an account here. --TouchGnome 20:07, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. -Sean Curtin 23:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep More notable that a lot of Wikipedia articles. It's not like it's occupying valuable space anyway. - 193.11.248.83 00:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment As one of the people who have worked on the page in question, I will abstain from voting, even though my vote wouldn't be taken as seriously since I'm not a logged user. However, according to the description of a vanity page, this is not one. The author of the web-comic has not been participating in the creation of the article as far as we know. The editors that I know of have been people who are not paid nor associated with the comic other than as fans. While I admit that there is some issue with professionalism, it is something that has been discussed and is being worked on, and any contrabutions are welcome. As the author has been spending his time trying to get a work space to try and get the comic running more professionally, I personally find it unlikely that he is using sock-puppets to create it. Lastly, in argument for the article, I have noted that in other votes a google count has been used for validity of an article. Therefore I submit that Drowtales has a Google count of 6,790. 64.136.26.228 04:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit:by way of identification (since there have been accusations of "sock puppets") I'm offering this link. Thats the best I can do, as even user-names can be faked. http://frost-indri.deviantart.com/ 64.136.26.228 04:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's yet another webcomic. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 05:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 06:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I like Vanity, keep it I say! Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'

Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment No doubt; most of this article's (sincere) contributors seem to have always been anons, and they likely only registered accounts today in order to vote here (as Wikipedia policy requires). At least they've bothered to register, as opposed to the anonymous poster who put up this VfD. Shem^(talk) 10:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Given the significantly less notable entries in Category:Web comics, and how long this particular comic appears to have been online, I see no reason it should be singled out for deletion. FYI, it appears as though the Drowtales artist was recently targeted by a group of disgruntled 4chan users, over not giving them free access to all of his/her work [9]. Given the edit history ([10]) of the user who submitted this VfD, I find it difficult to believe that this isn't just the "Wikipedia branch" of the 4chaners' attack on this artist. Contributers on this article, of which there are apparently several, have stated that they are not the artist. It's hardly a vanity page, and I resent anon users using Wikipedia as a staging ground for their conflicts elsewhere on the internet. Note comments from vandals and trolls including "Drowtales been asking for it. They need teh pwned." Shem^(talk) 10:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable webcomic. --cesarb 16:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Julia Fetherstone

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Erm, how is it a hoax? ··gracefool |☺ 10:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Because she didn't stand for the Assembly, there's no evidence of any of the claims made in the article, and every other contribution by this serial hoax artist has just been a completely nonsense story about one of several real (but non-notable anyway) students from the Australian National University. Ambi 10:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. In that case, Delete ··gracefool |☺ 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Sorry I was going to explain, but it was quite a load to list at once. Ambi explained perfectly. Students having fun at keyboards, again. -- Longhair | Talk 10:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ambi she is not a student at the Australian National University, what makes you say otherwise?
  • Just about everyone else you've written about is. And everything you've written is nonsense. Points for humor, but the joke is a bit old. Ambi 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, none of the subjects of my articles have been about ANU Students - my IP originates from there sure, but would you care to back up your assertion about the subjects instead of the author??
      • Why don't you just stop writing fake articles and be done with it? If you want to write a real article, make sure it can be verified as true and try logging in to do it. -- RussellG
        • Nothing is verifiable, some of it is verifiably wrong, and I know half of the real people you (the anon) have written stories about personally. Nice try, but no cigar. Ambi 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not me that's writing them. You have me confused with the other guy. RussellG 10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • (sorry, I meant to direct it at the other guy, but I worded it badly) Ambi 10:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think it's quite vindicating that the article no longer seems to be up for deletion. What of the principle of good faith that this project is notionally founded on? None of the above assertions have been backed up with truth.
  • Please don't remove VFD notices. This is considered vandalism, and will lead to you being blocked. Ambi 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have done no such thing, Ambi. I appreciate you are acting in good faith but could you please be more considered before accusing me in future, I'd also point you to the included references in the article as well as to my repeated request for you to back up your assertions. Jamesss 10:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ambi likes Canadians, huh?
• Delete as unverifiable. Deb Foskey is an MLA for Molonglo not Ginninderra. The Elections ACT website shows that she did not run for the seat of Ginninderra [11]. Nor did she stand for Brindabella [12] or Molonglo .There wasn't a feminist party stand at all. Therefore, at best she is a student at the ANU of no particular notability at the moment. Capitalistroadster 12:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep Naughty Ambi! Jamesss 13:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing says hoax like sockpuppets. --W(t) 13:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• I agree, so the fact that Ambi has brought in a ringer like you proves our case. Bazing!
• Look, we can play the "who has more friends?" game too!- 'JoJo 13:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Delete this and all articles created by the hoax vandal, and disregard the sockpuppet "keep" votes, also Columbia 14:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Can someone do something about this JoJo vandal, please? Proto 14:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Despite the fact that she is, in fact, very cute. Assuming the claims about her political career were true, she would not be notable. --Habap 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Captain, I'm giving her all the sockpuppets I've got! Delete. jglc | t | c 15:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cute girl, though. jglc | t | c 15:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bad sockpuppets, bad! --Etacar11 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very cute- Keep - 'Hotpants 07:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --FCYTravis 09:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• PArt of her is real, we don't know she isn't worthy of an entry. Maybe we could go on a fact finding mission beyond "google"- Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish about non-famous person backed up sockpuppets, threats of recruiting more "voters", potential vandalism - Skysmith 10:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no threat of vandalism, nor is getting people interested in the site to come and join this fine community and express their views a violation of the rules.- Keep- 'TagTeam 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• • Only votes and contributions have been to this and other linked VfD's. This username has also vandalised User:Sjakkalle's Talk page. jglc | t | c 13:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unsubstantiated claims. Has not appeared in Woroni recently as quoted. Was not on recent ACT electoral ballot etc. Wikistyler
• Delete - Non-notable, vanity. -Eisnel 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claudia Newman

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is a URL from a news site linked in the article that proves that the story is completely false. The name does not even match that of the article.

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete -- Could the spammer please stop? RussellG 10:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There is no basis for that claim.

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 10:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The article you linked to yourself disproves your article.

Unsigned comment above from RussellG -- Longhair | Talk 11:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It most certainly does not

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Sign your posts people. After your comment, use four of these ~~~~ -- Longhair | Talk 11:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see no evidence it disproves it (JoJo)

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nice tits. delete Dunc|☺ 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep CzechPartisan

Comment: CzechPartisan's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Quite so, no need to get snarky. Given your reasoning thus far it seems this is only a popularity contest anyway. Go whine to the T-man about it. 'JoJo 13:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Strong delete, as soon as possible. Also, votes by sockpuppets shouldn't be counted. Columbia 13:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, they called you a sock puppet! Not like your votes which we must assume as legit... 'JoJo 13:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo' Keep Matthewleung87 14:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Jamesss 14:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sockpuppets Proto 14:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteLectonar 14:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. --Habap 15:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I sense... a great disturbance... in sockpuppets. Delete. jglc | t | c 15:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nice cleavage — unconfirmed; no google match; likely hoax. — RJH 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Above photo of offending material" - heh. -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, nothing in the news article supports what is said here. --Etacar11 16:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the article makes anyone notable, it's the girl, not her "mother". Septentrionalis 18:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sock supported hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongest Keep having spoken to some friends of mine, they assure me this is worth keeping. I agree wholeheartedly- 'Hotpants 07:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'

• • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• okay, keep, but only because of the tits. Last one, geez 'TagTeam 07:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --FCYTravis 09:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- very good form, and lack of a persuasive argument that it is fiction- 'Freezer 10:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish backed up by sockpuppets, possible copyvio picture. More pseudo-postmodernist experimentation? - Skysmith 10:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not a copyright violation, she said she gave the photo to a friend- 'TagTeam 10:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• "Keep" MARMOT 16:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This is the same user who proposed the policy "Administrators can't vote" jglc | t | c 16:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blue Orchid Scandal

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 'User:JoJo'
• Keep This is well verified and cross-referenced by municipal reports in the state archives. A lack of google information is probably more indicative of a lack of Australian politics on the internet rather than inaccuracy.Jamesss 13:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Comment: You've voted twice JoJo? -- Longhair | Talk 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, but clearly I have done so under my username, not as a sock puppet. 'JoJo 14:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo', merely a typo.

Your username is a sockpuppet. Delete jglc | t | c 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --W(t) 13:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep 203.129.46.232 13:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is why 14-year-olds should be banned from the Internet. Proto 14:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Appears to be more sophisticated than a 14-year-old. Possibly someone with a political agenda. Probably should also check all other articles by original contributor. — RJH 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• CommentMugasaurus 15:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Freaky how it looks so real!
• Delete, hoax by uni student(s). Alphax ^τεχ 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified and the sockpuppets don't help. --Etacar11 16:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Robertson and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you say it will be deleted, well, what choice do we have but to do so? jglc | t | c 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I watched The Muppet Movie earlier today. I've seen enough puppets. --Xcali 22:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Elaborate sock supported hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in memory of wik stupidity at having endorsed it to begin with, I recommend it is kept but a label "joke" is added- 'Hotpants 07:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If we admits it's fake, delete it- 'TagTeam 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations (even though this one is a delete vote (?)). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --FCYTravis 09:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - admitted false pseudo-postmodernist rubbish backed up by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm reversing my vote to Keep, I've confirmed most of these hoax articles using my sophisticated Google searching techniques. Excelsior! AIphax 19:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above impostor vote actually by AIphax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clam Commune

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This is hardly a hoax.

Unsigned comment above from 203.129.37.120 -- Longhair | Talk 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's a rather good hoax, but let down a little by the fact that giving references means that people can see the references in question don't actually exist... delete, but eight out of ten for the attempt. Shimgray 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but also give eight out of ten for the attempt. I particularly liked the MacKinnon reference in one of the other ones. Ambi 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you award hoaxers marks of out ten, they are sure to keep trying until they get full marks, is that what you want? Kappa 11:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I am getting awfully tired of this user's vandalism RussellG 11:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, google is the be-all and end-all of finding information... (JoJo)
  • Notably, no-one actually cited Google as a source above... it's trivial to verify, though, using standard bibliographic methods that the references quoted in the article don't exist. After that, it all begins to become clear... Shimgray 12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep But delete faulty references, I can personally vouch for the Clan's existence.Jamesss 13:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) If you say so Jamesss
• Delete Sockpuppetry Proto 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. Can't this user take his obvious talent and work on real topics? There are many articles that require revision and he's not only wasting his own time, but many others.... --Habap 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these sockpuppets have too much time on their hands. Ooops, and so do I... --Etacar11 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Blue Orchid and Robertson, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitous manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiable by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't use Google. I use Dogpile, which searches Google and several other search engines. If something is written eloquently, it is not immediately recognizable as complete lunacy, so the administrator categorized it and gave it the benefit of the doubt pending further investigation. Are you trying to prove that it is possible to insert hoaxes into Wikipedia? Well, it is. Fortunately, there are enough eyeballs on these kinds of things and mechanisms for removal to ensure that deliberate lunacy such as yours is corrected. If you really want to have an impact find some poorly written articles and revise them. --Habap 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I ainta a sockpuppet you fools, ah jussa wanna have a say in dise "articles".
• Replace with an article about the real Clam Commune{http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yves.belotteau/Beloteau/communedeclam.htm}
• Keep As with Blue orchid, recommend joke label attached though- 'Hotpants 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --FCYTravis 09:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- it is very funny, 'TagTeam 10:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
• Delete - pseudo-postmodernist rubbish experiment backed up sockpuppets, possible violation of WP:POINT. Contributor is advised to concentrate on fiction writing - Skysmith 10:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James H. Robertson

Student prank/hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's quite legitimate

Unsigned comment above from 203.129.37.120 -- Longhair | Talk 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alas, hoax articles are not legitimate here. Perhaps you might try stories.com? Ambi 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Say what you like about his deviant sexual practices, I still James H. Robertson is the finest administrator the NSW legislature has ever seen. Jamesss 11:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep 203.129.46.232 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Alexdowner I'll support the NSW greens till i die.
• KeepKman
• Keep ShahXerxes Another vote for my man in the Greens.
• Delete Sockpuppetry Proto 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppet hoax. Google isn't the end-all of notability, of course, but I find it hard to believe that I get more than a hundred hits and all these people get none. I'm nobody. --Etacar11 16:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete please Yuckfoo 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete not on Lexis either. Septentrionalis 18:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Blue Orchid and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fuk you Mobb Deep!!! Biggie fuk you too!!--64.229.218.142 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Puppet limit exceeded. --Xcali 22:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong Keep Reasons given above- 'Hotpants 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- sounds real enough- 'TagTeam 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppets galore and more. --FCYTravis 08:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There should be more evidence than "sock puppets". I could accuse you all of being sock puppets too. What is the burden of proof anyway? Keep- 'Freezer 09:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sjakkalle is the real sockpuppet he keeps deleting notable articles. fuckin' douche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.123.75 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 Jun 2005
    • This is anonymous user's second "contribution". jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Pseudo-postmodernist false entry backed up by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, nonsense, too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW douche, u cant vote more than once— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.123.75 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 Jun 2005
    • This is anonymous user's second "contribution". jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If your underused and likely vestigial eyes would care to squint at this page, you will note, Ms. 65.92.123.75, that Sjakkalle has only voted once. jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Craft Masonry

The text as stands is highly POV and arguably defamatory. Someone with far more knowledge than I might want to rewrite this as a brief NPOV about the difference between the different schools of Masonry. [PostScript -- for the abvoidance of doubt, I fall into one of the social classes debarred from the Craft, and accordingly have no vested interest beyond veracity] -- Simon Cursitor 10:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete -- Definately an article that has to go. I see no point in rewriting this garbage -- RussellG 10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think there's anything there worth merging. --W(t) 13:40, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced and probably defamatory. --Carnildo 20:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 06:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing worth saving. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Best Episodes of Ed, Edd n Eddy

Obviously POV, seems to contain most/all of the episodes anyway the wub (talk) 11:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- POV list. - Longhair | Talk 11:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. If someone wants to write about the episodes, we might want a List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is already Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Season 1, Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Season 2 etc. created after this VFD debate. the wub (talk) 12:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete you are aware though that we have short stubs on all of these episodes already? Not that i'd call it cruft of course... Dunc|☺ 11:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV list, unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV list. JamesBurns 11:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very difficult for a best/worst list to not be POV. Also, this list has 20-25 "best" episodes per season... surely that's (almost) all of them anyway? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. I find every episode best. Ah, what a classic show. Nestea 12:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. If this fails, clearly we'll need the List of the Worst Episodes of Ed, Edd n Eddy Wikibofh 23:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex Sonkin

Does not seem notable. I would expect a notable CEO to get a great deal more media coverage than what I can find on google. GreenZap, the company Sonkin now appears to work for has previously been deleted (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Greenzap). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CEOs and other executives need to be pretty darn notable to have an article of their own, especially when the company itself doesn't even have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 13:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, but I'm being bold and replacing it with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary article to discourage recreation. — Gwalla | Talk 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can of worms

Dicdef, already in wiktionary. Radiant_>|< 11:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete How has this lasted since mid-March? Sonic Mew 11:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to include famous and infamous use --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Such as what? Radiant_>|< 12:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • The closest thing I can think of to a famous use would be the Earthworm Jim 1 & 2 collection by that name. I think the article is useless because the phrase is almost always "whole new can of worms", not just "can of worms". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • So merge it with List of video game powerups? I recall a 1-up in EWJ was a can of worms. Or maybe it was an extra continue. Radiant_>|< 13:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Radiant! the wub (talk) 13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictdef. --W(t) 13:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dictdef --Xcali 22:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete common phrase, but not going to be more than a dictdef. -- Jonel | Speak 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Truly this made me laugh...delete it. RealSaltLakeRule44

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marija Taflaga

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• On a community project such as this, what makes Ambi's word any better than another person who might have faithfully watched the site for years, yet only just now decided to make entries? Any evidence it's not true? Gosh, google. Well, you sure showed me.

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. The onus of proving that something is true is on the person who puts it on the site. I know it isn't true - the fact that you have no evidence of these wild (not to mention defamatory in a couple of cases) claims just makes it all the more obvious. Ambi 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is known and indisputable fact. Ambi's attitude is disappointing. If I can be so frank. This onus of hers is particularly unreasonable when she decides the qualifying standard of proof, which on other pages has been as thin as 'I know this guy in real life'.

Unsigned comment above from Jamesss -- Longhair | Talk 13:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep 'JoJo 13:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep There is little evidence that it is not true, and it is hardly defamitory

Unsigned comment above from CzechPartisan, users first edit. -- Longhair | Talk 13:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --W(t) 13:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 13:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Matthewleung87's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Sure you're only pointing out the truth, but doing so in a way that discourages newbie participation. Wikipedia isn't about respecting some opinions over others based on experience, there are no elites in the open source philosophy. Explain how the above user's inexperience is pertinent to the outcome of the vote, or please retract your comment.Jamesss 13:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: -- I'd comment, but I know you're wasting my time. - Longhair | Talk 14:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly this 'newbie' knows what he's doing, and what he's doing is vandalism Proto 14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Longhair is defaming people! Punish him. Naughty boy. 'JoJo 14:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

Comment: Go away. -- Longhair | Talk 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all this idiot's vandalisms Proto 14:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Romania's foreign ministry lists embassy staff's names on each embassy website. As such, a search on two engines should have turned up the page for whichever embassy she works at, if she's real. As it stands, exactly two pages were returned by Google & AltaVista combined in searches for "Marija Taflaga", both showing it as a person's username - and not on Romanian sites. As such, the "person" is clearly non-notable, if not entirely fictional. The Literate Engineer 14:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — does appear to be a hoax. — RJH 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:Jojojr I can honestly say that I am not aware of any sock puppets, teasing aside. I know you guys are geeks, but is it really such a stretch for you to believe someone could get 4 friends to vote for this? That's kinda depressing- 'Jojojr 15:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
  • I know you are a sockpuppet, but is it really such a stretch for you to stop making nonsense articles? Alphax ^τεχ 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and do something about JoJo and his many sockpuppets Columbia 15:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, it's all the same to me. --Etacar11 16:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense; I've already speedied a more blatant nonsense article from this contributor. —Xezbeth 17:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep i lika ppl.--64.229.218.142 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Puppet limit exceeded. --Xcali 22:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Holy puppets, batman! See their contribs, it's all vfds, and all the same vfds. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |!
• Delete hoax Pburka
• Keep I know a friend or a friend who is Romanian, and swears it is true. It's a government cover up that has led to the website being altered to hide her existence- 'Hotpants 07:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --FCYTravis 09:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hrmmm, well, I guess deleted this one Keep- 'Freezer 09:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsense backed up sockpuppets. Intentional recruiting of "voters" is not any better. Someone's artistic experiment? - Skysmith 11:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Lynch

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• On what basis? (JoJo)

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep - Verifiable fact should not fall victim to Ambi's war on accuracy and personal venedettaJamesss 13:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fargomargo
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - can the sockpuppets JoJo/Jamesss/Fargomargo/Matthewleung87 be kiled please? Proto 14:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — no references cited and unable to confirm the veracity of this page via google. It does appear to be a hoax. — RJH 15:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well-written, but patently ridiculous nonsense. --Habap 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sockpuppets are like Stormtroopers: There are a lot of them, and they're never effective. jglc | t | c 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual sockpuppets. --Scimitar 15:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Die, sockpuppets, die! Columbia 15:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet again. SP's begone. --Etacar11 17:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another hoax article. Needless to say, there was no Australian Federal Police Deputy Commissioner by that name except in the sockpuppet kingdom. Capitalistroadster 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I respek that phat b#tch!--64.229.218.142 20:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I see no votes of "Delete; cute, though" or "Delete; nice tits, though" (like a couple of her buddies in this collection of hoaxing vandalism), so I won't research this enough to cast a vote. Barno 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not factual. --Xcali 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Pburka 02:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-as she does indeed have nice tits 'TagTeam 07:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --FCYTravis 09:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI'd like some evidence it's not real, seems very well researched.- 'Freezer 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Unverifiable nonsense (or experiment) backed up by sockpuppets (or equivalent). (It also seems that Stormtroopers rarely hit their targets) - Skysmith 11:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey man, i ainta a darn sockpuppy, i jus' hate ur gay bureacracy and i really despise this "western freedom" thing. Too many lies ...--65.92.123.75 17:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine. Then you're a meatpuppet with only two edits to your name. I'm sorry, I mean, your number. jglc | t | c 17:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A definite hoax. Wikistyler

Definitely not a hoax, obviously sockpuppets are being used to get all these delete votes. Sure, they may have different IP's, but for all we know they could be different people. I think the burden is on them to prove they are not socks- 'JoJo 05:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Delete. Hoax. Postdlf 05:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• lol, such obvious sockpuppetry. Delete ··gracefool |☺ 12:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete not factual, hoax, search of Australian Federal Police site shows no Sarah Lynch ever served as a deputy police commissioner during 1996-2002: http://www.afp.gov.au/afp/system/dynamic/query.asp?query=sarah+lynch&t=0&r=1&n=1 clarkk 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just to flog a dead horse: John Davies was appointed Deputy Commissioner in Sept. 2001 replacing Mick Keelty according to http://www.afp.gov.au/afp/page/Media/2001/0927deputycommissioner.htm. clarkk 14:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax per above. And such blatant sock puppetry needs putting where it belongs. -Splash 14:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I would like evidence this is a hoaxGateman1997 18:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shawn Cobb

Vanity Page Leithp 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh, awful. Delete. David | Talk 12:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Vanity - Longhair | Talk 12:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity. --ElfWord 12:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• speedy --MarSch 12:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This unfortunately isn't a candidate for speedy by my understanding of the criteria, otherwise I would have listed it as such. Leithp 13:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • it should be a candidate for speedy --MarSch 14:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No argument here, from the looks of things User:216.20.25.1 has been creating vanity/nonsense articles and vandalising others all day. Tiresome. Leithp 15:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Delete: It could be considered a nonsense speedy. Can somebody go to vandalism_in_progress and report this anon IP? jglc | t | c 16:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think he's gotten bored and gone off to sniff glue or something. Leithp 17:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kid vanity. But refreshing. --Etacar11 17:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I hate to rid us of an article about a great man of high "standarts", delete. --Scimitar 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore kept. — Gwalla | Talk 05:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William E. Caswell

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being physicist who worked at a laboratory, no evidence of passing the professor test. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nnn Proto 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he did some notable physics, though its details are a bit technical--I will try to improve the entry. User:Betsythedevine
• Keep, appears to pass the professor test. Thanks Betsythedevine. Kappa 05:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Historically notable individual. JamesBurns 05:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 05:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Joseph Driscoll

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being a retired engineer with a semi-famous nephew and a passion for hiking. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Proto 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus (kept) — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LeRoy Homer

Died in the 9/11 attacks; he was one of the flight's pilots. That's a borderline case so I'm listing it here. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this one. I am unsure of several of the other articles, but I think that the pilots of these flights are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. His name should be mentioned in the appropriate articles, but I don't see the point in having a bio. --W(t) 13:44, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete and/or send to Memorial. Never received any specific individual attention; just another 9/11 victim. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 13:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Proto 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Kappa 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pilots are more notable than the average 9/11 victim. (per Sjakkalle. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or send to Memorial. --Carnildo 20:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Xoloz 04:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a memorial, and I'm afraid that I don't think the pilots were more notable than the average 9/11 victim. Quale 09:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 06:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William M. Feehan

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for working at the NY fire department. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:44, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, couldn't these have been mass-nominated, Radiant? Proto 14:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been tempted to, but they really are very different persons, and some of them have a (weak?) claim to notability. I wouldn't be surprised if half ended up kept and half deleted. Radiant_>|< 15:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep. this article is worthy of being in Wikipedia unsigned vote by 67.80.40.235 (talk · contribs)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. — Gwalla | Talk 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wilson Flagg

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he could be considered notable for being a retired US navy admiral; that's a borderline case so I'm listing it here. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless we've kept articles on other navy admirals purely on their being navy admirals (I have no idea how many of them there are). --W(t) 13:45, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Proto 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep admirals, general, etc., just as we would keep CEO's of midsize companies. The responsibilities are similar enough. --Scimitar 15:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep admirals. Kappa 18:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Scimitar. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The TailHook scandal was notable enough. Capitalistroadster 20:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep flag officers. -- Jonel | Speak 03:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Scimitar. Xoloz 04:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 06:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jane C. Folger

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for working at Bell Atlantic and having four children. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:45, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Proto 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim)

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being an account manager for some minor company. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable for his actions during the hijack, and for the link at the bottom of the page. He should be distinguished from the other Jeremy Glick though. David | Talk 12:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate september 11th timeline and delete (not a useful search phrase to redirect). --W(t) 12:15, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion. Merge and delete isn't a possible vote, because we need to keep the history of merged pages.
• Delete, nn Proto 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for his actions during the attack. --Scimitar 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficiently notable. Nickptar 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for his actions during the attack. And rename to Jeremy Glick (9/11 victim), maybe turn Jeremy Glick into disambiguation. My bad, it's already a dab. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not rename. The term 9/11 is systemic bias, as that particular meaning is only recognizable within the US. Radiant_>|< 21:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As important as other hereos of the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Barneygumble 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not just a victim -- he actively participated in the events. Pburka 02:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All of the people on the planes who made phone calls during the hijackings are notable. Dsmdgold 21:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wanda A. Green

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being a flight attendant. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 12:16, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Proto 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for abover reasons. Nickptar 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above, obvious reasons. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto. -Wiccan Quagga 09:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 06:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stefan Neßler

Looks like vanity to me, but I'd like a second opinion before I userfy. --W(t) 12:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• vanity (and more or less subtle advertising) was my first thought, too. I would like to have another opinion on the talk page; for now weak delete Lectonar 12:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just 42 Google hits, and of even that very modest number, more than half seem to be other people who just happen to have that name, bringing the actual score down to 20 or so. You'd think a notable maker of nudie pictures (the very lifeblood of the internet) would manage more than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete height, weight? Utter vanity. --Etacar11 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/vanity. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. German Wikiedia doesn't list him. Pavel Vozenilek 23:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 06:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creative production

This transwikified dicdef has been around since August 31, 2002, and has shown no indications of growth since it was created. A previous VfD attempt resulted in no consensus. Delete this overly broad topic, or provide proof of viability by showing meaningful expansion before this article becomes a lasting tribute to the Halting problem. --Allen3 ^talk 12:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a renomination after about 6 weeks. Kappa 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if anyone wants to write an article on this the fact that we deleted this dict-def won't hinder them. --W(t) 13:21, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete it's been a subsubstub dicdef for 3 years now, not likely to change anytime soon. Whatever there is to say about this topic is in other articles like creativity, art, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like a pleonasm to me. Delete, replace with redirect to production. Radiant_>|< 15:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I gave the last time around: that there's no sign that it's anything but a non-subject, and that the only coherent argument given so far for keeping it is that it could be improved -- while none of the people arguing this has yet bothered to improve it. -- Hoary 15:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. It hasn't been expanded, and right now it is useless. --Scimitar 15:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nearly 3 year old dic def substub showing no signs of growth. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stubby dictdef (though the phrase gets surprisingly many google hits; ah well, everything is permitted in PR, I guess). Jitse Niesen 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary stuff, really. Barely that, I've never heard of this strange term. It sounds like PR nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FotHB and Fox Zandar

Fiction. Not even online gaming cruft. -- RHaworth 12:58, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy as nonsense or possibly as an attempt to communicate (read the last paragraph). Anybody who reads this all the way to the end is a stronger man than me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• What the? Delete NOW, before it drives someone to insanity! Quickly, the Wikipedia could be liable! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Originally meant as a formal history of an online guild but has caused conflict and should be deleted. (I take ownership as the original Author) -- Orocamion

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. --WikiFan04^{21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

Antiwar.com

Many web sites are notable in their own way, lots of google hits from other sites etc.

My arguuments are:

• Wikipedia.com is not google.com
• The page is unlikely to go beyond a stub. As the website is (obviously) an antiwar POV. The article if improved will unlikely be NPOV.
• Antiwar.com does not contribute to human kowlege. The site is about an ideology against wars hence Anti-war.

So this should be an external link whenever referenced. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This VfD is a prime example of Mr. Coolcat's lack of understanding of the NPOV policy. — Davenbelle 12:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• VfD is hardly a place to discuss personalities. Your objection is directed at me not the delete case of article in question. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is useful, and it is an inevitable site with great importance in today's world - unsigend 219.111.147.78
• Keep Seems to be a notable site, Alexa score is good (4,871), as is Google (639,000 hits) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Vandalism. This vandal marked the article "speedy delete" and mass-deleted wikilinks to it. Mirror Vax 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stereotek 13:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Evidence of nominator acting in bad faith. jglc | t | c 16:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fine article, astonishingly bad behavior by nominator. -Willmcw 16:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Alexa score, Google hits, also Patrick Buchanan is a contributor. This site gets a fairly large amount of attention from news media and other important sites since it is one of the most well-known libertarian/conservative sites criticizing the war in Iraq (not just wars in general) and the Bush administration's foreign policy. Soundguy99 16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please Yuckfoo 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with arguements of original nominator Barneygumble 13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Alexa and google data. Please note the site itself doesn't need to be NPOV. Only the article on it has to be. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite notable. —Seselwa 20:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with Soundguy99 and Mgm. Barno 20:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm Xoloz 04:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but without endorsing the attacks on the nominator. JamesMLane 06:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - especially considering bad-faith actions of nominator. One does not delete every Wikilink to an article (thus creating gobs of work for other Wikipedians) until vote has been certified. Nominator needs to study the VFD process before nominating other articles. --FCYTravis 09:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable website. Article needs expansion and this can easily be done without introducing POV. Kaibabsquirrel 23:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Smartpedia

Insignificant Wikipedia mirror. Jeronim 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree completely; wondering why no one else is voting on this. It's utterly non-notable. jglc | t | c 18:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• undecided. Not sure how to decide whether it is "notable" or not. I think the fact that they replace "wikipedia" by "smartpedia" in their version of our articles is outrageous, but that in itself is not a reason for deletion. In any case, see also Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Stu#SmartPedia. -- Austrian 21:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks, following Jeronim's suggestion below. -- Austrian 23:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. It is directly related to wikipedia and it may be reasonably argued that this ugly rip-off must be explained somewhere. But if one recalls that something similar may be done by each and every porno site just to attract traffic, there is no notability in the site, not to say that the article is original research, and its correctness may change every moment. mikka (t) 21:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• comment -- I'm undecided because, while the site isn't notable, there'd be some value in keeping the article to dispel confusion. Not everyone knows about Wikipedia mirrors. Someone who encountered Smartpedia might be confused about the relationship and come here hoping to find an explanation. Having an article identifying Smartpedia as a copy of Wikipedia, and explaining the GFDL, would clarify matters for such a person. JamesMLane 07:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say I wouldn' want for wikipedia to be identified with smartpedia and the likes. If its articles will carry acknowledgements of wikipedia, we are fine, if not sue them. mikka (t) 18:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, smartpedia does write "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the beginning of each article, and has a link "source" that points back to wikipedia. -- Austrian 23:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Better to redirect Smartpedia and the likes to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks where each known mirror is listed already, than have hundreds of pages like Smartpedia for mirror sites with only trivial differences. -- Jeronim 02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant, non-notable, and irrelevant.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - 15 votes to delete; 14 votes to keep (of which two are "weak", and not counting the anon at the end for which the vote in this vfd was his 5th edit). Article still requires extensive cleanup, possible renaming. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Japanese fascism

Does this article say anything coherent at all? It appears to equate historic Japanese nationalism/authoritarianism with fascism in an extremely idiosyncratic way, and... er, that's about it, apart from going on and on at great length in a rather peculiar writing style. This should be deleted unless cleaned up to be more meaningful (for example, there probably is something to be said about the influence of Western fascist movements on Japan, but this article isn't it). -- The Anome 13:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• The topic is covered in some depth in the Japanese nationalism article. This article doesn't quite mesh with the nationalism article, and the title and article appears rather POV. Perhaps it would make more sense to call it "Japan and fascism", then clean up as appropriate. So I vote to rename to Japan and facism, then recommend a thorough cleanup. :) — RJH 15:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment

• i stay totally accord,and preciselly if this original idea,but when see certain original elements,mixed with outside political apports and visualized certain ideologycal division between Japanese nationlism ideology from shogunate-meiji period to Showa period-august 1945,decided to changed at present name,but i stay accord to returm of your exelent idea.for certain i this if one humble apport to japanese ideologycal and political analisis in these historical period for your sources,one thing why very little having to analize in profoundity and sugest why this served how point of cominzed to one future analisis for any expert or knowed in materia.

other sugestion can to how theirs sayed,merged these article with present name or this sugest name inside Japanese Nationalism Article, i seeing the political complement between political analisis or can to transformed in one second part why analized in depth the materia.

General comment over Japanese fascism

i added respect at european fascist apports,why Japanese thinker Kita Ikki and others why traveled for europe,or readed some european political books receiving these ideologycal apport and theirs transformed this in new japanese political rigth-wing thinking and remembered why during last 30s,and 40s decades,japan receiving the visit of Members of European fascist parties,represent for example,Eugen Ott German nazi ambassador,some Nazi party or SS units members and exist one reduced German and Italian Colony in Tokio,Karafuto and other parts in Japanese empire.

Theirs if supposed,leaving examples of Mein Kampf and other European fascist ideology bibliographical sources,why Japanese thinkers and philosphers readed at continuing,for added these apports at local radical nationalists ideololy.these ideologycal interchange inclusive if continuing at lasts stages of conflict,when way German subs arriving to Japan,along german scientists and experts somes Nazi German politics and Military forces or SS members(case how German sub why realizing the travel to germany at Japan with one SS political member along Japanese Navy passengers,in special travel to transport Uranium 234 for nuclear artifact) or exist some flying plans of Luftwaffe or Italian Regia Aeronautica)(special fligth from Europe,over Russia and Siberia Mainland to Manchukuo for Japanese Navy or special figth of Heinkel He 277 V-1 from Salzburg to East Asia or fligth plan of Junkers Ju 290A with special logn range modifications from France to Manchukuo,how others examples) making ultra-long range fligths from Europe to Manchukuo or Japan during last months of European front.or before at conflict when Soviet Russia are certain member of Axis,whe Germany and Japan use with Russian autorization,the Transiberian railway for commercial envoys of prime materials.

In Japan Germany and Italy mantain inside diplomatic services,ones cultural departments,for mantain cultural contact with your own citizens and cultural interchange with Japanese natives.japan mantain official and ideologycal contact with Axis alliance for media of your Ambassador in Europe,General Hiroshi Oshima,why mantained in your post at final of european war.reiterrally if evident why during these political or ideolgycal interchanges,if impossibly why Japanese,well knowed over liked to learned about foreing knowledge,no take any political apports products of these interchange.

Respect at some East Asian connections with Japanese nationalism and nazism,exist evidence about Wang-Chingwei s meetings with german Leader or local Hindu leaders in British administration why stay in secret contacts with german and Japanese agents before and wartimes during Pacific War or the White Russian political use of Fascism ideology and the Swastika in Manchukuo.these ideologycal interchange apport other asian rigth-wing elements to japanese nationalists sources during conflitc times.

Some direct historical traditions comparing between Axis Members

If possibly seeing some direct historical precedents why also integrated from your local traditions the Axis alliance members.

when observed why Japanese take your traditions of Samurai warriors,Bushi-do Code or administra tive sistem of Shogunate,in relative parallel Fascist Italy remember your ancient ideals of Roman Empire or Cavaliers traditions or in one most depth case,Nazi Germany also used the ideals of First Reich and your King Othon I,the Teutonic Cavalier Order, the "Fredericus Rex" legends the Second Reich Empire military traditions for mixed this with your NS ideology.or inclusive when if observed the comparing when Germany and Italy if sign the alliance are how the "Sacred Germanic-romanic Empire". but tha mosts knowed example of these traditions in German case are the "Prussian Military Spirit" provided from German Province of East Prussia.

Japanese local Nationalists thinking

joining at previous elements mentioned,if see the local radical elements from ancient times,with Samurai military caste,Bushido code or Shogunate administration.these elements,more later mixed with recent contemporary japanese nationalist philosophy and thnking during Meiji Period(this if i denomined at these political period of japanese nationalism how "Japanese fascism").when cominzed the travels of Japanese thinkers and philosophers to America or Europe and others parts of the world(inclusive africa,for example),theirs seeing the local thinkings and take the interestings ideologycal elements and mixed with own thnking,along the first interchange with European rigth-wing thinking and Philosophy.more later when raising the Axis ideology in Europe,these interchange continuing,and these ideologysts receiving new elements,and this process if mantained during the rests of WW2 period until final.(these last period from last Meiji days to raising Showa period until august 1945,i named how political term of "Showa ideology or Showa nationalism")

Japanese local Nationalists thinking in actual days

In present days if possibly why exists some idelogycal interchange but in reduced form for part of local rigth-wing radicals and nationalists with American European,Asian or other extreme rigth followers around the world.Inclusive actually times,exists somes local rigth-wing nationalist japanese groups how NSJAP(National Socialist Japanese Party) why defend these lazes and stay connect with local nationalist secret societies and theirs realizing interchange with others NS followers in Europe,America or Asia in present days.theirs remembered the figure of General Hiroshi Oshima how one great leader,along General Hideki Tojo or Emperor Hiro-Hito. these and other groups remember the Axis Powers Alliance too when analized the paper represent for Japanese Empire joining Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in some think thank groups,local conferences and some international meetings in other countries in European area for example,and theirs defend the local values and thinking over foreing elements in Japan.

Some General Sources

more thanks at very little friends and some enemies,for your ,amable and heavy destructive comments.

Well,i am present:

the name of your uhknowed server are Wellington Perez Ishikawajima,i am from of Peru.if evident why i are non native english,and no poses knowledge of motherland language,Japanese,my motherlanguage if bow my latinamerican born,if Spanish.i only poses reading knowledge in english and yours well knowed limits in emglish grammar and writing style.

my nickname are Wladk for Wladimir Kamisky,i readed over German-Russian war and liked the history of Pro-axis russian military leader Bronislav Kaminsky. i am stay more prided of history of my great country and in my limits mantain contact with other japanese citizens why knowed about history in Japan and outside.

my farests ancestors are japanese and poses family in central america,Mexico ane Europe.i for working reasons staying preciselly in central america,in ones parents.

i sta more disgusts with theirs for your actions why in first thinked in good faith and comprension but in last days appareing agressive attacks,no one adequate recomendation or similar.

for this i knowed much of japanese history and poses more information at respect.preciselly i am debt at my nearests of Jap web sources,treated to publish some interesting info,but uhknowed why stay violating certain rigth laws.

i am are one interests in jap history in much detail overall the specific topic previously mentioned. i am knowed one panamenian why mentioned at me over your farests japanese ancestors,secret agents,jap plans against panama canal,and present some bibliography.

i stay more disillucioned with yours,if totally certain why poses more troubles in my grammar or no poses writing habilities,but i writing in good faith ,lamentably,yours stay in these strict media with correct inflexible rules,and i no poses well diction for participed in this.if more lamentably why having occured this.

in present days stay in these country,but for working reasons i traveled to Europe in route to Madagascar or South Africa.i am decided no return at your media i stay more desappointed and disgust with theirs!

Sirs,for my part no poses troubles,i am no agreed much idea of writing in your media other time,if more terrible for me!

thanks at yours for amable attention

NOTE: (about editing in native language). There seems to be somewhat related material at ja:天皇機関説. If your native language is Japanese, perhaps you could use that as a starting point for expansion or a place to branch and start a new article. --Tabor 18:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VOTES

• Weak keep but cleanup. As it stands now, it strikes me that it might be categorized as a personal essay or original research: hard to say, given its difficult grammar and syntax. The label Japanese fascism strikes me as justifiable, if only because Japan was one of the Axis Powers. A valid article could be written relating Japanese willingness to join the Axis, relating this to traditional Japanese chauvinism, mistrust of foreigners, and military expansionism, and the rise of a military authoritarian government in Japan. The content now here is not totally useless for the construction of that better article. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE as it does look like original research. The fact that Japan was part of the Axis Powers alliance has nothing to do with fascism. Japan was not fascist because it was a member, just as Finland was not facist even though it was a member. Spain was facist and it was *not* a member. 132.205.95.65 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, text dump. jglc | t | c 16:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep and strong cleanup; the article may need to be replaced. Suggest the editor contribute to wikipedia in his/her native language and then request translation. As it stands, text is nearly unusable. Defending distinctions between abstractions like fascism, nationalism, and totalitarainism requires a solid grasp of the language. However, Japanese fascism is a topic that has been widely discussed, most notably perhaps by Japanese historian Masao Murayama in Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics (Oxford, 1963). It does not take much searching to find quite a bit of literature on the subject. I'll start by adding references to the article. --Tabor 17:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but strong cleanup; The article's discussion of the Ziabatsu and such has importance, but it is so poorly written and has a strong POV that it needs some serious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneygumble (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 Jun 2005
• Keep and cleanup, in agreement with Tabor. Barno 20:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I've been working on some. I really wish people would just ask on the talk pages or add a cleanup tag instead of bringing here. Check out VfD for the last week an a half for all of the discussions on these. Wikibofh 22:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. Baru 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter crap. Wikipedia isn't a personal website. --Ypacaraí 23:43, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Valid topic, per Tabor. Jitse Niesen 00:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving to abstain, given that the author requested deletion. Besides, I am realizing that I would probably not be so eager to keep it if it were about a subject which I understand better. -- Jitse Niesen 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact whether Japanese social system of 1930-1945 was "fascism" or not is still a matter of controversy.Ken304 01:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Ypacaraí. --Nanshu 01:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but strong cleanup Rrwuires section on differences between Japan and the European Axis; explicit checklist for fascist tendencies; notes on Jpamnese belief in Victory through Willposer. Septentrionalis 02:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteOriginal research.--Mochi 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Mochi--nixie 04:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup per Tabor Xoloz 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hermeneus 05:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Widely discussed historical topic. JamesBurns 06:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. It must be arranged with related articls about duplications and relations. Johncapistrano 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless transformed completely into something more meaningful. -- The Anome 09:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Did anyone check the history of the page? Most of the page was written by just a single person "200.46.215.196"="196.215.46.200.dialup.psinetpa.net, panama" / "200.46.215.141" / "200.46.215.170" /... so on. How can I trust such a page created/written by a "no-login guy"? Poo-T 10:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE Nonsense.Commonsenses 10:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to urge everybody to take a look at User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan and User:Wikibofh/Japanese Articles for some analysis on similar articles by the same author. -- Jitse Niesen 12:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And I would urge those users, and you, to make the effort to wikify whatever content you can extract from the articles and put it where it belongs and stop wasting everyone else's time with this stupid bullshit. Why this consensus has emerged that this drivel is deserving of special treatment is beyond me. Take whatever content is salvagable, put it in the numerous existing articles about Japanese history and stop talking about it, voting about it, and discussing it. Just do it and quit whining and defending rambling, misspelled article titles for POV essays. Ben-w 17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

• Comment: This is a valid criticism, which I addressed when you raised it on my talk page. Realizing that could be transitory I have added it to my Japanese Articles page. I will let my edit history and contributions to the wikipedia stand on their own. Wikibofh 23:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't continue to assume good faith about these articles. The defenders have been told often enough to merge whatever usable content they can find into the EXISTING ARTICLES ABOUT JAPANESE HISTORY but they point-blank refuse to do it. Ben-w 17:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This is an unfair characterization. and you know it. Let me spell it out. I agree that some of these should be integrated into other articles.. However I think just putting these sections into other articles will result in them being deleted and the information will be gone. I think the articles need to be cleaned up as they stand (or under different titles) and then they should be merged. Just to be clear, if I refuse to do something on Wikipedia I will say something subtle like: "I refuse to do that". There will be no room for mis-interpretation. If you disagree with how I've handled myself, take it to an RfA or RfC. Don't use VfD. Wikibofh 23:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, using VfD actually prevents sensible merges. Talk pages are good for such discussions. And keep for the moment. Charles Matthews 19:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete - the article seems not usable at all. I agree that Japanese facism is a facinating topic, but whether this one is patent nonsense or not is a different matter. -- Taku 06:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. But I observe that those who voted for "delete" are mainly Japanese users. It is natural for Japanese to oppose to people who talk bad, or discuss about, about their own race, and this applies to all other races to those people who talk bad about, or discuss about their own race. Mr Tan 12:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Clean up and rename to Japan and Fascism as per top post (by RJH). Celestianpower 14:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, cleanup, rename etc. Kappa 21:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Enough is enough. The author of this article has been posting his original research papers on various rather minor topics of modern Japan. The majority of them ought to have been written into existing articles in the first place and do not merit independent namespaces. Yet he keeps making these little articles to show his research papers on Wikipedia possibly because he cannot incorporate his broken English texts into the tightly written existing articles. Every time his articles are put on VfD they will be greeted by "Keep, cleanup, merge" support votes. The fact of the matter is that although some native English-speaking members might clean up the English a little, few would bother to merge them into relevant articles.Hermeneus (talk) 03:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you say that? I have made many hundreds - probably well over 1000 - edits, directly working on these contributions. Including very many merges, for example into Japanese nationalism. You are just hypothesising. Charles Matthews
• Delete - Wikipedia expresses political slant and is sure that it is not what entraps a political opponent. --Maizuru 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-I am are the some author of these texts.my name if Wellington Perez Ishikawajima,i proceded from Peru and stay in short times in central america area.i am poses japanese ancestors and knowed over contemporary political and military history and stay more prided of this history suceses. i am no poses oposers interests only present some historic suceses and some relates knowed for me thanks at my contact with japanese in country and some japanese sources or ancient books.i lamented why others japanese sensebad with this. i how your knowed poses short knowledge grammar and wirting english knowledge,no knowed well japanese and some poses depth know over spanish. reiterrally i am stay prided of own contemporary history and i leaved to foreing in next days...i am commisioned at one central american friend in use of myidentification in site for continuig of sending info,for why i am stay outside ofarea in nexts times.but always existing some persons why poses some troubles with history facts,i am no gained nothing in related lies or falsities,this if some historical facts,more less relationed with country of poses more prided in your history or i no poses any great imagination to composes some certain cyphers,dates or historical numbers or similar! reiterally if you liked Deleted or Preserved ,if decision of yours,i am only limited in present these sucesses.User(Wladk)
• Weak keep - I think the article itself needs to be changed, but the concept itself is alright. Thus if it can be re-written I am in favour of keeping. Will => talk 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - There should be a way of organizing this historical article. Merging it with other articles seems unsensible, as similiar articles exist for other countries as well as for other ideologies concerning Japan. 84.137.21.236 08:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bloody Garden

Article claims that "Bloody Garden is a hardcore band from... Switzerland". Googling "Bloody Garden" + Switzerland returns 7 hits, none of which are pertinent. Googling "Bloody Garden" + hardcore returns 26 hits, none of which are pertinent. Non-notable, unverifiable bandcruft. jglc | t | c 13:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete it Brighterorange 15:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 17:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 — Gwalla | Talk 06:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrea fraguas

Was originally gibberish and marked for speedy deletion. Whichever fool made the article original has now replaced it with what is clearly a joke of an essay. Regrettably, an essay usually has to go through the full VfD procedure. Can it still be speedied? Splash 13:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Darn it. I was the one who speedied it; This still has the marks of an obvious deletion. jglc | t | c 15:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with all due haste. Personal essay. — RJH 15:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus, so Keep. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Quantum sort

Previous VfD gave delete as a result, but the person who closed it kept. --W(t) 14:02, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• No, I think SimonP was right on this one. There is a bunch of delete votes for it being patent nonsense, then someone adds a reference (The Jargon File, thanks to Josh Lee), then there are only keep votes. Verifiable nonsense isn't nonsense. Keep. Radiant_>|< 14:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an in-joke among computer science people. There are tens of thousands of non-notable injokes amongst computer science people. That does not make them all notable. --W(t) 14:26, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • I think SimonP was taking out this policy from the top section of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If in doubt... don't delete!" — EatMyShortz 10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's still nonsense. It's a joke from the Jargon file and has no place here. If an anon had created this hoax article, it would have been considered outright (stealth) vandalism, I think. Lupo 14:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This might want tying into Quantum immortality and Quantum suicide. Morwen - Talk 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in this quantum universe. Retain in all the others. ;-) — RJH 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Given
  • Klauck, Hartmut (2003). "Quantum time-space tradeoffs for sorting". Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. pp. 69–76.
  • Pagter, Jakob (1998). "Optimal Time-Space Trade-Offs for Sorting". Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, November 08-11. p. 265. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Høyer, Peter (2001). "Quantum complexities of ordered searching, sorting, and element distinctness". 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. pp. 62–73. arXiv:quant-ph/0102078. Bibcode:2001quant.ph..2078H. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• I suggest that if the consensus is not to keep this text, a redirect be made to quantum computing. I'm still looking for this type of quantum sort. Vote pending. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • I fail to see any reason why the term must redirect to a page where it is not explained, unless you copy the current content there, and here again I fail to see why. mikka (t) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The current content should not be merged to quantum computing, which is why I explicitly used the qualification of if the consensus is not to keep the current content. There is literature on sorting in quantum computing, as demonstrated, which is referenced from the "Further reading" section of quantum computing. Uncle G 00:29, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • BTW, in some Parallel World this article is already in wikipedia, so it is no harm to delete it in Our World. Surely the one who can use this algorithm can also find its description Over There. mikka (t) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure that quantum computing will allow novel sorting algorithms, but this is just a joke. --Carnildo 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The algorithm is either useless or wrong. Not to say that the author badly misunderstood the jargon file idea (which has it own sibtle fallacy). In any case the topic is nonnotable. Faulty original research in its current form. google links lead mostly to irrelevant pages, most unexpected and hence funny one IMO being this one. mikka (t) 22:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. I went to some scientific talks on quantum computing and I can say that this is nonsense. An algorithm cannot take advantage of the multiple-universe theory, since we do not know of an experimentally way to test the multiple-universe hypothesis. Jitse Niesen 00:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep The contents of the article might be nonsense (or vastly over-simplified) but quantum sorting is a very important field of research. Pburka 02:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That doesn't make sense. If the contents are nonsense, then what's the point of keeping the article? --Carnildo 03:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess I support having an article on Quantum Sort, but not necessarily this article. Changing my vote to weak delete. Pburka 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Standard Wikipedia policy is not to delete a page because it's content is unworthy. If you don't like what's inside an article, fix it up. Only vote delete if you don't think there should be an article on this at all. — EatMyShortz 10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - First can I say I can't believe the fuss Weyes has kicked up over this, first taking it upon (him)self to blank the page and set it to redirect, and then putting up a new VfD. Anyway I'll just quote him: "It's an in-joke among computer science people." So, it should be changed to state that it's a joke among computer science people and left as an example of a CS joke. (Hell, I'll do it now). There are plenty of pages on jokes. "You have two cows", "how to keep a genius busy for hours" and "shit happens" are just a few examples of internet jokes that have their own wikipedia articles. Some, such as "keep a genius" contain some analysis of it. Hence we should correct this article but definitely keep it. Also, redirecting implies that the content of the article is discussed on the target page. Since it isn't, this page should keep its own content. "That does not make them all notable." (- Weyes) - have you noticed how many articles there are on Wikipedia? I don't think a topic needs worldwide notability to be acceptable. — EatMyShortz 07:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's already been voted on and kept. Useful to some.ToriaURU 10:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, the result of the vote was delete. --W(t) 20:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • Nope, the result of the vote, actually, was keep. This was decided by an administrator. I think you have to read your deletion policy again - in particular this page: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. It explains: "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy)." Thus the outcome was not decided by a majority, but, as SimonP, the admin who ruled "keep" pointed out, by an external verification of an article which was up for deletion for unverifiability. The only violation of deletion policy was the changing of the article into a redirect, after the vote was closed. — EatMyShortz 14:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) (PS. I wonder if there is actually some Double jeopardy precedent for articles?)
• Comment. What is your opinion on the following compromise: The current article is replaced by a stub like

"Quantum sorting algorithms are sorting algorithms that run on a quantum computer. Quantum sorting algorithms are usually not faster than classical algorithms, except perhaps by a constant factor (Høyer, Neerbek and Shi). However, a speed-up can be achieved in space-bounded situations (Klauck)." + references as given by Uncle G.

I think this should be merged into quantum computer, but if people want a separate article on quantum sorting, that is acceptable to me. Jitse Niesen 12:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. I'm all for an article on quantum sorting, my problem was just that the article in question wasn't it. --W(t) 20:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Keep and improve.  Grue  19:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article about a joke. Gazpacho 02:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Quantum algorithm or Quantum computer as a section, mentioning both the possible sort and the joke sort (and jargon ref). —Josh Lee 03:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While it may be a joke in the computer science field, there are actually people working on similar and equally odd ideas. Might be better combined with Quantum computer than its own entry. --Jareth 04:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Pjacobi 12:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite into a real article. I disagree with the merge people because there is too much stuff in the quantum computing field to put it all into Quantum computer; e.g. just to mention then stuff I'm familiar with, there's a lot of work being done on crypto applications of quantum computing (both cryptanalysis and cryptography), and there's also quantum computer networking (based on the quantum cryptography stuff - you need to be able to ship the quantum entities around if quantum cryptography is to work). To the extent sort algorithms for quantum computers are a real research topic (and the list of papers above seems to suggest it is) then it deserves an article. PS: The stuff about the "many worlds" joke would be OK to keep as a brief mention lower down in the article. Noel (talk) 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --CSTAR 03:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. - Sikon 10:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. mikka (t) 21:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators cannot vote

A rather spurious policy proposal intended to prevent admins from voting on 'requests for adminship'. It was created by an account that has existed for two days, and seems only to exist to stir up trouble MARMOT (talk · contribs) (e.g. filing a RFC in petty revenge, and spurious voting on RFA). Thus, please delete this nonsense. And yes, admins can vote on this VFD. Radiant_>|< 14:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• And I shall gladly vote. Delete. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• If an RFC ever becomes needed, we should keep this. Apart from that, this is about as spurious as the Wikipedia:Death penalty, and should be deleted sooner or later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There already is such an RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/64.62.161.12 seems related, I've asked David for a sockcheck) and this user has done enough weird things that we don't need this particular evidence. Radiant_>|< 14:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Is this the right way to handle this? Shouldn't we all just argue against it, it doesn't become policy, and then we can delete it without further ado? DJ Clayworth 14:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it were a serious proposal, we could discuss and vote on it. Rejected proposals are archived, never deleted. Since it's nonsensical, however, I see no reason for archiving it. Radiant_>|< 14:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Troll magnet. If it needs to be kept for Evidence purposes, I suggest that it be Userfied to User:MARMOT/Administrators cannot vote, or something similar. --Deathphoenix 14:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uselessly disruptive. If ever needed for an RFC it could be archived on a talk page, or undeleted if need be. - Taxman ^Talk 14:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the above reasons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Might I add that user accounts that have only existed for two days have absolutely no business coming in and proposing new policy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, created solely for disruption. --cesarb 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, troll. -- Arwel 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or userfy (if I am eligible to vote) per Deathphoenix above. It clearly states that it is just a proposal. There probably is no real foundation for deleting this under VfD policy. 205.217.105.2 17:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a serious policy proposal. --Carnildo 18:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (1) The title fails to mention it's with regard to RFA votes. (2) Admins aren't the arbitrators of the community. (3) I would rather encourage others to vote instead of disallow people to vote. (4) Creator doesn't seem to understand the community. (5) If it's needed as evidence it can be undeleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Mustafaa 19:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy per Deathphoenix for the time being, and delete from WP namespace: nonsensical trolling "policy proposal". Barno 21:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - while I believe that anyone should be able to propose policy changes and constructively discuss them, there are ways and means and this isn't it. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What are the "ways and means" you mention for a new user to propose policy? Where is the policy/guideline? Village pump? Some of the discussions there develop into policy proposals, but many of the items there are simply announcements for already proposed policies. This person followed the procedure on Wikipedia:How to create policy. The only guideline he didn't adhere to is the first, but as a guideline, I don't think there's a requirement to meet all of them. --Unfocused 13:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See my response to Everyking below. - Taxman ^Talk 13:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Author must try harder? I don't understand what purpose this is supposed to serve? Maybe it's because I'm prone to bias and furthering my own petty interests only? JRM · Talk 22:40, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't disrupt Wikipedia. Adminship should not be a big deal. Admins are just editors with extra "powers". Suggest that the person who proposed this get a clue, as this policy would negate several other important policies. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Are administrators allowed to vote in the VfD? :) Pburka 02:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Letting the proposal stay does not in any way force us to agree to it or even acknowledge it. It does however give people who favor such views the opportunity to develop them and put them forward so that others can see them. Everyking 02:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue is the name this article was created under is misleading and not helpful. The proposed policy is not being able to vote on adminship, while the title is the inflamatory not being able to vote at all. After all that, the proper place for the discussion about whether admins can vote for nominated admins is not a policy page in the Wikipedia space, but the Requests for adminship talk page. Bottom line is, sure we can have a discussion on whether admins can vote on requests for adminship. This just isn't the place. - Taxman ^Talk 13:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • So the proposal was titled poorly. We all understood what it was meant to be by reading it, and could have moved it in an instant, right? Why on earth would someone bury a policy proposal in the "Requests for Adminship Talk Page"? This was posted in exactly the right place. I respect yet disagree with those who voted delete because they think this is nothing but a troll, but "wrong place to post a proposed policy" is contrary to the posted guideline on how to create policy. --Unfocused 01:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, it was titled in an inflammatory manner and written in an inflammatory, and poorly formatted way by an editor with a large number of disruptive edits. What about that would lead anyone to believe it was created in good faith? Hmm bury a policy proposal on the talk page of a very highly watched page that is specifically about voting on new administrators? Sticking it at a page in the Wikipedia namespace with almost no links to it is burying it more. Besides Wikipedia:How to create policy even tells you that of 70 proposed policies, only 4 have been accepted. That would tell anyone thinking about it that there is a better way to get what you want accomplished. Finally it's not really even a new policy, it's just a change to the voting policy at requests for adminship. Requests for changes to that policy should go on its talk page. The fact that there is such strong consensus to delete this page, and as of yet, no one has brought that discussion up there is further evidence this page was created in bad faith. - Taxman ^Talk 18:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Beyond the simple disruption issues - heaven forbid a large group of people on WP who have made enough consistent edits to be elected by a consensus of editors (admin or not) to admin status should actually have an opinion on what it is that they do! If the original author wants it published and available for comment, besides the comments of this VfD forum, there is always their user page. Fire Star 04:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trolling. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see what is wrong about making a policy proposal, even if you disagree with it, it is only a proposal. ~~~~ 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep. Simply deleting this is contrary to "Assume Good Faith". In addition, ideas don't care who has them. This one is worthy of discussion; it would certainly help prevent the formation of administrator cliques, which is a present and growing problem here on Wikipedia, in my perception. Although I expect this to fail spectacularly, I think it is worth of a discussion. <sarcasm>Heaven forbid we actually allow a new user to open a discussion here!</sarcasm> It seems I'm voting with the anons, new users, and possible socks, but there's a principle here. --Unfocused 19:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The corollary to "assume good faith" is "don't be a sucker". A user attempting to create a policy such as this on the third day of their account's existence sends up so many red flags that it feels like flag day in the PRC. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And what about letting a discussion proceed is "being a sucker"? I feel that the idea itself is worthy of discussion, and even if you don't agree, what is the harm in allowing it to continue? If I had an idea, I would have posted a proposal on my first day. I waited nearly six months to register an account, so I had an idea of how things work, and I know I'm not the only one who registers with some experience. It's a discussion, not a hand grenade. "Red flags" are a warning to take a closer look, but when I look, I find no danger here, except what I suspect is a whole new use for VfD. Are we going to VfD the RfCs we don't like next? --Unfocused 13:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Letting oneself waste time on a fairly obvious troll is being a sucker. And on that note, that's the last I'm going to say about this. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • A primary rule of the prevailing wiki-thought is that if someone suggests an idea you don't like, it's trolling. It's nauseating. Good faith is dead. Everyking 13:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        Your zeal would have been better spent on drafting a new formulation of the proposal that is a lot less clumsy and inflammatory. That, in turn, seems to be more productive than lamenting the lack of good faith in others. Is suggesting that people are calling this trolling because they "don't like the idea" supposed to be good faith, then? It's quite obvious why people assume this is a troll, and it has not so much to do with the concept as with the way it's expressed. A proposal that outright states that admins often further "their own petty interests", true or not, relevant or not, is not the best way to encourage constructive discussion. As an aside: meta-squabbles over who can call whose evaluation of the situation bad faith, now that we might truly call "prevailing wiki-thought". And that's not really helping either. JRM · Talk 13:51, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

        • I don't favor the proposal so I have zero interest in helping develop it. Also I think I can say with near certainty that almost all users, with a handful of exceptions, would be subject to accusations of trolling if they put forward a proposal like this, so I think the way it's expressed is not fundamental to the opposition. Everyking 14:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

          An audacious assumption, which I do not agree with. The point will probably remain moot, however, since no similar proposals will likely be forthcoming any time soon. JRM · Talk 14:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

  • being worthy of discussion is besides the point. There are places to have the discussion, this just isn't it. As mentioned above, the Requests for adminship talk page would be. - Taxman ^Talk 13:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't patent nonsense speedyable? (DELETE) Snowspinner 01:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. However, it makes perfect sense to me, and judging from the other votes I think you may be the only one who doesn't understand it. Everyking 13:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - there's no reason to leave this troll lying around cluttering up the already-cluttered Wikipedia namespace. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trolling. jni 13:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Magic 8 ball says: Troll. Holy TrollSlayer +6 is glowing blue. Stars are aligned. Project2501a 23:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine what somebody would think of Wikipedia if they weren't a troll and got this kind of treatment. Everyking 15:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How many of the voters for deletion are non-admins?
      • "There are 20 votes for deletion, of which 16 are by admins." MARMOT 21:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It doesn't really matter how many of them are admins... admins vote on VfD's fairly often and keep the VfD's clean of votes by sockpuppets and vandalism such as a user changing another user's vote. I see ABSOLUTELY nothing productive that could come from this idea of not letting admins vote. Delete.--Chanting Fox 21:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 22:29, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Ex-ter-min-ate!. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User:MARMOT is trying to make a WP:POINT, and even if he were not, this still isn't a good idea. There is nothing wrong with proposing new policies, but I see no evidence that MARMOT did this in good faith, and ultimately, it is nothing more than a troll magnet. func(talk) 14:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"User:Marmot has made many good edits under various IPs, including this account." Unsigned comment made by MARMOT, 13:15, Jun 20, 2005

You do know your contributions list makes it really easy to see you have made very few useful edits and that your RFC page makes your disruptive ones even more clear right? And if we gave you credit for positive edits you claim to have made anonymously, we'd have to credit all the disruptive ones you seem to have made too. - Taxman ^Talk 18:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Thanks for that. I'd sum it up as pointless." Marmot

• keep. The idea of somehow restricting the power of admins is not new. Kept, this page may be a good historical argument and reference for both positions. The motives of its creation are irrelevant. Judge by merits of the page itself. mikka (t) 21:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Lee Drees Jr.

Non-notable and feeling in turns very sorry for himself and very pleased with himself. Can this sort of tripe be speedied out of here? Splash 14:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• 13-year old investment genius, and a millionaire! You must keep, clearly. Oh wait- unless it's all just a big, unverifiable vanity/hoax page, which it is. If Chewbacca is a Wookie, you must delete. --Scimitar 15:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, and his wife is great, too!. Alphax ^τεχ 15:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 17:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails Google test, and obvvious crap. Anomynous
• Delete clearly vanity page. --Ragib 22:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy vanity Pburka 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)

FTSE Small cap

"Companies listed on the LSE that do not fall under the bracket of FTSE 100 or FTSE250 feature on the "SmallCap" index" - followed by a plain list of hundreds of them. This sounds like useful information on a stock market, but it would have to be updated nearly hourly, and thus is very unencyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 14:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Author's remark It is clear to Marmot, at least, that the article is of value.
• Keep, I think yearly updates would be sufficient. Kappa 14:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a stock report. Alphax ^τεχ 15:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Redirect to, hmmm, FTSE 100, if you then rename that to Financial Times Stock Exchange Index? This page would realistically only need to be updated quarterly, as the FTSE 100 and 250 only change quarterly, and there aren't that many companies that come to market to need an hourly updating. However, I think it's incomplete at the moment. Hiding 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge into Financial Times Stock Exchange. Not separately notable, not likely to searched except by the name or abbreviation of the exchange. List of hundreds of companies included in index is not encyclopedic. Go look at their website or something to find this info out, not Wikipedia. Barno 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Financial Times Stock Exchange is a redirect to FTSE 100. Hiding 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, trollcruft. RickK 05:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  "I suggest the above vote be ignored, as it is intended as a personal attack against Marmot. Moreover, the specimen is yet to substantiate his unecessary opinion."

  • The above was written by MARMOT (talk · contribs). RickK 18:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, wikipedia is not a stock report. JamesBurns 06:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Changed vote to Delete Hiding 13:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per JamesBurns. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Financial Times Stock Exchange. James F. (talk) 23:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nimf

Already have nymphomaniac and this is at best a neologism. Do not redirect to hypersexuality or any page that redirects to it. Splash 14:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Google test useless due to foreign languages, apparently. Keyword searches coupled with hypersexuality return zilch. From what the article says, I'd suggest a redirect, but you said something about that (what do you mean by don't redirect to redirect?) Ambush Commander 15:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant that I didn't think it should be redirected to e.g. nymphomaniac which is a redirect to hypersexuality. I clarified my comment.

• Note also that it is, as created, also a personal attack - on "Kristie Newbold" and "Bill Wright". I removed these, but still note that, as it exists, the entry is completely plagiarised from the Hypersexuality article's opening paragraph. Strong delete. jglc | t | c 16:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 21:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Simon Arthur

Vanity page? Jyril 15:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — first-person bio. — RJH 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete autobio vanity. --Etacar11 17:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. That said, I have to admit I liked the bit where the guy search-and-replaced certain parts of the text to change the first-person bits into third-person bits, and didn't pay much attention to what he was doing, so now the VfD notice reads "You are Theylcome to edit this article..." (Also, his theyight is 70 kgs.) -- Captain Disdain 12:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedied. Golbez 07:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Highwaystar

Nonsense. Candidate for speedy deletion?--Ian Pitchford 15:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Definite nonsense.--Jyril 21:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)

Boat Loans

Unencyclopedic. Pointless. Advertising. --Ian Pitchford 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• comment. I removed the spamlink. I'm not convinced this doesn't merit an article, however; we have a good article for mortgage, for instance, and "boat loan" gets 400,000+ google points Brighterorange 15:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Despite my minor contribution in improving this article, as it's been noted is unencyclopedic.--Idleguy 16:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, possibly a redirect to a loan-related legalese glossary page, which will also attract car loan, vacation loan, education loan, personal loan, secured loan (wha!!! no article here? indeed...), &c., &c. mikka (t) 22:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • oh. forgot: bad title. mikka (t) 22:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beer Frisbee

A frisbee variant played by one frat at the University of North Carolina. 183 google hits (compare to 77,000 for "Beer pong"). Non-notable. Meelar (talk) 15:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — typical frosh-improvised game :-) — RJH 15:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Similar results for other two search engines, but remember, Google test is not conclusive. In this case, however, the context suggests a delete. Ambush Commander 15:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete, Delete - completely useless article - looks like selfpromotion to me. Gorrister 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Enev if it had a million Google hits it would not be encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 16:11, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Keep. After some recent edits, this page seems to explain the details of a fun college game. -- Ddd57 17:38, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• This is this users only contribution. Gorrister 17:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I fail to see why this entry is any less worthy than any of the other frissbee-based games currently listed. In fact, it seems to have a more fully developed rule system and folklore surrounding it than most of the others. I have a difficult time seeing how this game could be classified as improvised. The grammar in the entry is a little rough, but could easily be corrected, whereas the substance is quite extensive. -- dstevens23 13:06, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC) — (dstevens23's 1st edit.)
• Delete. Vanity, not notable, largely unverifiable. 94 unique Googles, the first relevant one coming on the 3rd page of results. A game played by two chapters of a fraternity is not encyclopedic. If the article stays, the photo needs to go; I see the beer, but where's the frisbee? Regarding the existence of other articles on frisbee games, Wikipedia is not consistent; the existence of articles on other frisbee games should not be used as an argument in favor of keeping this one. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable vanity fratcruft. -- pcr^talk 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this page is pretty cool actually -- ejking 16:06, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) —

Posted by 24.14.255.35 (talk • contribs) - fourth edit.

• Delete. Non-notable. mikka (t) 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would like to see this sport codified but one frat's version of the rules is not encyclopedic. There are several completely different rules to be found through google on beer frisbee, frisbeer, and beerbee. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. To Wikisource (or Wikibooks in a "Frisbee rulebook"?), with other frisbee rules, and one of those nice little boxes pointing to it on the Frisbee page. Better to not completely scrap something this insane, I think. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student vanity. JamesBurns 06:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Amusing and well documented rules and history of the game. I can see removing the "pregnant lady" bit, but the rest mostly seems appropriate for the general public, and it is educational for folks looking for new things to do instead of sitting in front of a CRT. --Razmear 05:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 20:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fredic Brown

Speedy delete? - misspelling of Fredric Brown.--Ian Pitchford 15:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say redirect, and then if it's an absurd redirect, list it on redirects for deletion, although all three search engines give Fredric Brown as a correction, so it may be close enough (and you get some misspelled hits!) Ambush Commander 15:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fredric Brown, on the assumptions that a) he's pretty notable so the number of people typing in his name might be pretty large, and b) if one person made that typo others might. By the way, do we have a redirect for Frederick Brown? If not, I'll put one in immediately... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vladislav Petrov-Kondratov

Vanity, possibly insult. Very non-notable. Jyril 15:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Fails both whole phrase and keyword google tests. Delete Ambush Commander 15:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, written in first person. But who the 'we' is, I'm not sure. --Etacar11 17:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete, vandalism --MarSch 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete of course -Wiccan Quagga 09:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rightards

This page is overly polemic and poorly written and should probably go. Dlw22 15:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Funny, Yahoo! returns the Wikipedia article as the first result out of 635 (check it out ^ yourself). Ambush Commander 15:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• delete neologisms. Brighterorange 15:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This is probably speedy material, as a simple attack page. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 as irreparable copyvio. --Carnildo 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slaughter of the Separatists

Part of the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith script from here. Not sure about copyright. Non-encyclopedic anyway. Jyril 15:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see how this is different from any of the other spoiler pages; it's not clean, and might want a rename so it's obvious that this is to do with Star Wars episode 3 rather than implying something real, but after a little work should be a valid page, though the copyright might get it. Firien
• Delete possible copyvio. --Adun 16:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's just part of the script Barneygumble 13:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, scripts of major Hollywood blockbusters are definite copyright violations. Mgm|^(talk) 19:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV title - "slaughter" is a loaded term. Should be "Event in which the Separatists were involuntarily introduced to death". -- BD2412 ^talk 19:59, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Russell Ian Johnson

• Nominating - Delete - Vanity, ad, non-ency, non-notable. Plus he mentioed those damn Ikea ads. Splash 15:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - All of the above.--Tznkai 16:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no reason for notability given in the article. --Etacar11 17:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zebras on the Highway

Delete - Non-notable, non-encyc, ad. Splash 15:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, garage bandcruft. Alphax ^τεχ 16:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with all connected articles. --Scimitar 17:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. And their names all redirect here. --Etacar11 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if the band is notable, each bandmember isn't going to necessarily notable unless the band has achieved substantial enough success that the bandmembers are indiviually recognizable. Antares33712 21:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: I asked the poster to post an article about the band itself and indicate notably.
• Delete along with the redirects for all of the band members. Pburka 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete garage band vanity. JamesBurns 06:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was : proper redirect found, to an article on exactly this topic mikka (t) 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William Shears

Blatant hoax. "William Shears" + Beatles gets 0 google hits. As the article calls him, a "fictional" look alike. Scimitar 16:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete laughable hoax. --Adun 16:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Umm... what? Delete. Move to BJAODN. --WikiFan04^{ß 11:52, 16 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• Merge and Redirect to Billy Shears, This does appear to be related to the "Paul is dead" hoax/conspiracy -- pcr^talk 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, redirect to William Campbell, but no merge, since this article already has this information, written in a much better manner. --Scimitar 19:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Watch me be bold and do it myself. I now wish to close the nom., but I don't know how. --Scimitar 20:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was deleted as a copyvio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:39 (UTC)

Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm

Completing nomination by Antares33712, but abstaining. Splash 16:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - i just wikified a little and replaced the VfD which had been removed. This appears to be a legitmate, and within the domain of freemasonry notable, organization.
• Keep, unless there's evidence that this is a hoax. Pburka 02:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. According to http://www.scripophily.net/syrholcor.html, "Beautifully engraved certificate from the Syria Holding Corporation issued in 1928. This historic document has an ornate border around it with a vignette of Syria Grotto Building.". 1928 is still in copyright. RickK 05:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 06:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: confused -- even if copy-vio, does n make it true. Scripophily page reads as advert, and I would not accept an advert as proof that something is real, especially when the advertiser expects to make money from me believing it is real.
  Delete if copyvio; delete unless verified. --Simon Cursitor 07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think we need to worry about it until the originator comes back and rewrites it in a non-copyvio way. If they do, then we can discuss the truthfulness of it. RickK 07:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 20:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Finaghy primary school

This article appears non-notable. A Google search on the title returns 132 results. A Wikipedia search on "Finaghy" returns only Rail transport in Ireland. Delete (or merge if an appropriate destination can be found). — Bcat (talk | email) 16:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep this one but it needs some cleanup Yuckfoo 17:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In my experience, schools are notoriously bad candidates for google checks. Could someone try to verify another way? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have expanded it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Local education authority is Belfast. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delee complete unnotable primary school. Dunc|☺ 21:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice cleanup DoubleBlue. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a few paragraphs long and has a picture of the logo. If someone wants to merge it, that would be okay too. JYolkowski // talk 22:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A few paragraphs and a picture of the logo. I'm so impressed with the notability of this thing. --Carnildo 23:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article is kept, it should be moved to Finaghy Primary School. — Bcat (talk | email) 23:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice job DoubleBlue. Kappa 23:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article. 21 school articles listed for deletion in April, 2 deleted. 75 school articles listed for deletion May, all kept. 29 listed so far in June and none of them seem to be headed for deletion either. Give up. Notability? Good grief, man, it's a suburb of a British capital city! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is fine. Pburka 23:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Bahn Mi has moved the page from Finaghy primary school to Finaghy Primary School. This appears to be in violation of policy (e.g. "Please do not [

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 20:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Man hour

Non-encyclopedic, in my opinion. Delete. --WikiFan04^{ß 11:41, 16 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

• Keep and cleanup, good subject written in an odd non-serious manner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - WP needs an article on man hour. We should thank 64.219.62.35 for taking time out of his, obviously, busy schedule to write it. -Acjelen 18:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid article, but could use some of the wackyness removing. Is there a {{wacky}} template? -Splash 20:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic. How about {{Cleanup-tone}}? DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keepand cleanup: widely used measure of work. --Ragib 22:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable form of measurement. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Valuable topic. Pburka 02:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per above. -- Jonel | Speak 03:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep like everyone else says, expand. SchmuckyTheCat 04:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Obviously notable economic measure. Xoloz 04:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Marcio Parente

Non-notable, non-encyc, vanity. Fool just removed my speedy notice and put this up instead. If an admin reckons this can still be speedied...please...do us all a favour! Splash 16:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I been helping the portuguese developers comunity for many year, founder of the poruguese online Climbing comunity. I beleive to have reasons to see my name in the Wikipedia. MP

• Delete but not speedy, as there is enough content here for VfD. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Scimitar 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, Yes, I agree it needs to be on VfD and not on speedy - but the original one-liner was definitely a speedy candidate. I wonder should this be userfied?Splash 20:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious vanity. Sorry Marcio. Leithp 17:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete auto-bio vanity. --Etacar11 18:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a resume. Pburka 02:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Can't this bio be migrated to a user page ? --Simon Cursitor 07:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 20:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Big Papi

Shoud be merged and redirected into Red Sox Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to David Ortiz. No need to merge as this is already covered in his article. FYI, this should not have even been put on VfD. You can be BOLD and turn this into a redirect without the VfD. DS1953 17:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok. I do need a little help when it comes to boldness. Howabout1 Talk to me! 19:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy. mikka (t) 22:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) content was:

He's got a new page that I came across when reading the Huffington post the other day. It's a fairly simple blogspot page, but the guy seemed to be pretty intelligent and a nice enough fella. At least he updates frequently and stays on relevant topics. You should check him out sometime.

Eric P. Wright (writer/political hopeful)

Seems to be pretty non-notable; 11 google hits for "Eric P. Wright". (compare 574,000 for Kevin Drum). Delete. Meelar (talk) 16:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• delete this one please Yuckfoo 17:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Arizona State University (which I will do now).

PAB

Entry refers to one branch of one student government organisation at Arizona State U. Non-notable; should be merged at best with ASU. jglc | t | c 17:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and fix the title in the process. Vegaswikian 05:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Andrew Harrison

"Andrew David Harrison" returns 48 hits on Google - that alone would recommend him as non-notable. He has no hits for scientific publications or journal submissions. It is implied by the article that he has not completed any graduate work or degrees. Just another academic. Potential vanity. Delete. jglc | t | c 17:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete He needs to invent something before we bother to give him a page. In a certain light, I've done a lot, too, if you allow me a moment to write out the proper words. Allowing it to stay when he has done pretty much nothing worthwhile is opening the door to further vanity pages. --Kulindar 28 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)
• Keep I just went through and updated many of the unlinked keywords. I'm sure if it stays longer more will be added to it with time.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 Jun 2005
• Note: this user is the creator of the page in question, along with several other non-notable (to me, at least) Arizona State University pages. jglc | t | c 18:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 18:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 05:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn - DS1953 01:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Scientists are not inherently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Attention: This is not my first edit. I do not edit only ASU pages. I do not know this Andrew Harrison. zellin 05:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why is he notable enough to be kept in Wikipedia? jglc | t | c 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with you that you must have prior knowledge of every single notable individual in Wikipedia. If you did, there wouldn't be a point to creating biographies, would there? (unsigned comment by 129.219.6.5)
      • I agree, and I admit that there is a lot of merit in learning about that which had previously fallen outside one's scope of knowledge. However, one of the strengths of a VfD is that it allows people who do know about a subject, or can do research on the subject to verify and validate its status as a Wikipedia entry, can comment and tell other users why the entry should stay. By you saying "I do not know this Andrew Harrison," it implies to me that you don't know him in any sense, and therefore cannot judge whether or not he is subject to inclusion according to WP:BIO. jglc | t | c 04:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You don't make any sense with your rebuttal. Based on your analysis, you just eliminated yourself from authority to pass judgement. You don't know him in any sense, therefore you cannot judge whether or not he is subject to inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 Jun 2005
        • It is the author's and supporters' burden of proof to demonstrate that the entry is worthy of inclusion. This is not "innocent until proven guilty". jglc | t | c 07:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Is that so? If we are not to follow an analogous "innocent until proven guilty" principle, then what is your justification for inclusion of item #4, under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which explicitly says, "When in doubt, don't delete."? That sounds to me like an "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 Jun 2005
            • Deletion is distinctly different from nominating something for a VfD. jglc | t | c 20:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Note: When I said I don't know him, I meant I do not know him personally, the same way that I don't know Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush, who are both notable. Wikipedia is not paper. zellin 18:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned votes and votes by anonymous users and by accounts just created on the day of the vote

Keep I typically have an aversion to deleting entries immediatly after they are created. I'd like to give this one some more time to mature before deleting it right away. --Sjakkalle 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Note; This comment was actually created by 129.219.246.107 on 20:03, 16 Jun 2005. However, Sjakkalle has been known to use anonymous IP's to edit. I am uncertain as to whether or not this comment was actually left by Sjakkalle.
  • It is not my vote. I never edit at this time. The times I edited anonymously were before I got my username and account. According to Geobytes 129.219.246.107 is based in Tempe, Arizona. I am based in Bergen, Norway, at present using IP address 129.177.61.120. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Tempe, Arizona... not too far away from Arizona State University, is it? jglc | t | c 07:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. PER Wikipedia instructions on the handling of vanity pages, "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous." (Wikipedia vanity definition page) This means that being non-notable is not a basis for deletion. Further, this article includes pertinent accoplishments by the individual, and does not list irrelevant information such as hobbies, or aspirations. An official Wikipedia definition of unimportance includes: 1. Patent nonsense, 2. Original research, 3. Unverifiability, 4. Unexpandability, 5. Small number of contributors, 6. Does not belong in Wikipedia. This article satisfies none of these conditions except possibly (but far too early to say) 4 and 5. Wikipedia policy specifically states: "An article important according to the above guidelines should not be deleted on the basis of it being 1. Insufficiently important famous or relevant, or 2. currently small or a stub." Additionaly, a google search I performed returned many hits relating to this individual's academic career. Therefore, an article this new does not fall under the grounds for deletion. All information included in this article should be considered encyclopedic for inclusion. Postpone deletion until sufficient time has passed in order to establish unexpandability and a small number of contributors, and at that time we can determine whether we shall declare it unimportant. --CatTracker 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This is CatTracker's first and only edit or comment. Also, "being non-notable is not a basis for deletion" is just plain wrong - being non-famous is not a basis for saying an article is vanity. Being notable is one criterion for being included in an encyclopaedic listing. jglc | t | c 22:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Jglc, I just read the vanity page and the concepts of fame and notability are used interchangeably. That means that either being not-famous or non-notable are not reasons to delete an article.

This is, of course, flatly wrong. Wikipedia is not... Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not →Raul654 06:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It's kind of basic and simple, but notable enough where I can't say they didn't make contributions in their community. I'd like to see this expanded after the VfD discussion concludes. 68.108.201.212 5:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is user's 7th post or edit, his second non-minor edit. His only changes have been to ASU-related entries. jglc | t | c 13:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Jason, regardless if it's his 7th post or edit, it is a vote. You sound like you are trying to discredit people based on how active they are. It's as if you feel that only people who have time to sit on Wikipedia all day and add or edit things are the only people who should not be scrutinized. This is far from the intent and mission of Wikipedia, and you come off like you are trying to discourage and disgrace everyone who does not agree with your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 Jun 2005
      • No, user, what I am doing is simply pointing out facts. jglc | t | c 22:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are pointing out facts - partisanly. You cannot honestly deny that you have been bias in your fact pointing. That is a very dangerous position for a supposedly "fair" administrator to take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 Jun 2005
          • First off, I am not an administrator. And yes. I am pointing out partisan facts. Point out any truths that you feel will support your case, as well. I suspect that there are very few, as arguments for inclusion of this article have not focused on proving his notability, but rather on arguing over the question "who is notable?" and for inclusionism in Wikipedia (which I find warranted in some examples: for example, my feelings as to school listings in WP have changed dramatically; but not here). jglc | t | c 07:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- Doesn't sound like vanity...it makes sense that the author wasn't this person compared to that person Jordan Shocklk (I think was how it was spelt). MLSfan0012
  • The edit history says this vote was made by 205.188.117.10. Please log in before you vote so we can be sure it's really you and not someone pretending to be you. --Etacar11 20:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree! This article should be kept. It does not appear to be a vanity page.
  • (unsigned vote by Mantics, whose only edits are to this VfD) --Etacar11 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So, are you telling me that my vote does not count? --The_Dopefish 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Check out WP:SOCK --Etacar11 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --204.17.26.4 03:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) --The_Dopefish 03:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ( forgot to log in, sorry)

Please Keep this page up. Andrew is a true scholar!!!!

• (unsigned vote by Mikemontano, his only edit) --Etacar11 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep From what I can tell this guy isn't trying to become famous from this page, it is just a good brief blurp about what he was able to accomplish in a short amount of time. --Shancox25 18:28, Jun 2005 (MST)

• This user's first edit. --Etacar11 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Individual is accomplished and relatively notable. /(unsigned comment by 129.219.6.5)

Keep - An accomplished and notable individual. Was included in several newspaper articles and the list of work conveys an individual worthy of inclusion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Visitations (album)

delete non-notable solo-project by non-notable member of non-notable band -- pcr^talk 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be real, see label page. According to their site, they're on a national tour, so they have WP:MUSIC covered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • PS The Visitations seems to be the name of the band, so maybe this can be moved there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Move and keep per Starblind. Kappa 23:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was to not delete. In total we have 2 delete votes, 1 merge vote, and 1 keep vote by an anon which I will count given that this vote is from the author of the article. There is no consensus to delete. Merging this to Arizona State University is possible, but it seems quite awkward so merging with Memorial Union might be another option. I will not make a decision of where to merge it, so I will let the article stay as it is for now until somebody will be bolder than I am and merge it some place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

SDIC

Same user has created several pages regarding Arizona State University that have little importance outside the university community. Some have pertinence (such as the head coach of their basketball team), but others (such as this, which refers to a single room on a single floor of a single building on campus) are of no use to Wikipedia. Delete. jglc | t | c 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopedic. DS1953 01:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give the guy a break. This is a useful entry about Arizona University. 163.1.227.76 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will give him a break: I have not asked for him to be banned, nor have I attacked him ad hominem, as I feel that he is honestly attempting to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. This in no way affects the status of the article, however: it is quite simply unencyclopaedic. jglc | t | c 01:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to ASU. Maybe someone needs to create a section for all of this. If there are a lot of clubs that belong and overwhelm the school article, they could be put together in one article. Vegaswikian 05:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is a very important page about Arizona State University.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 Jun 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was technically delete, as the only votes cast were that of the nominator and unsigned votes of the article creator (which must be discounted based on his newness to Wikipedia); however, since the content is already contained in the Arizona State University article, I have taken the liberty of turning this one into a redirect to the appropriate section therein. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 18:15 (UTC)

ASU Cares

Same user has created several pages regarding Arizona State University that have little importance outside the university community. Some have pertinence (such as the head coach of their basketball team), but others (such as this, their "largest community service project") are of no use to Wikipedia. Delete. jglc | t | c 18:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that Jason. I'd delete them right now if I could. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 Jun 2005

• Comment: No harm done. Looking at your edit history, you seem to be a little misguided but well-intentioned. jglc | t | c 18:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allright cool, as long as you know I'm not trying to vandalize wikipedia or anything. I'll create another account on here soon enough. :) I noticed that you've marked almost everything I created for deleteion. Maybe if other people add on then it'll be ok. Until then, take care-- Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 Jun 2005

• Note: Please do not delete your comments, even if you have changed your mind. That way, they will stand as a history of the discussion of the page; instead, put a strikethrough your comments like this: <s> these comments will be struck through</s>, which will appear as these comments will be struck through. jglc | t | c 21:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - Xcali voted delete; DS1953 cast a strong keep vote, Arcadian suggested a rename (which would entail keeping the content); and jglc originally voted delete, but appears to have withdrawn that vote (this tally does not consider the two unsigned keep votes cast by the anon IP article creator). Therefore, the article will be kept. I will rename the page to comport with Wikipedia naming conventions. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 01:10 (UTC)

WP Carey

Same user has created several pages regarding Arizona State University that have little importance outside the university community. Some have pertinence (such as the head coach of their basketball team), but others (such as this, which refers to one man who has apparently contributed money to their business school) are of no use to Wikipedia. Delete. jglc | t | c 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relevant individual in community if they donated $50 million to business school. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 Jun 2005

• Maybe in that limited community, but what difference does it make to the world at large? He's no Andrew Carnegie. Delete --Xcali 21:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename. The eponymous company is notable, even if the founder might not be. If the article became "W. P. Carey & Co. LLC", it would have a better chance of surviving VFD, and the person "W.P. Carey" could be listed there. --Arcadian 23:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and I will say that something is wrong here that an 18 year old porn starlet Jordan Capri on this same page gets 8 keep votes to 1 delete vote and we are even talking about deleting a man whose name is on a major investment company and the newly-renamed business school of a major American university. His name will be on diplomas long after anyone even remembers her name. DS1953 00:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that it says even more that the porn starlet has an article approximately seven times as long as the man whose name is on a major investment company. But, in principle, I suppose I agree with you - just that the content of the article, right now, does not justify keeping it. The article does not even contain a full sentence - merely a fragment. If he is to be remembered, it will be as more than simply a "major benefactor" to a single university (though that may be part of his legacy), but as the head of a financial institution - which is not even mentioned in the article. Cleanup or, as I said before, delete. jglc | t | c 01:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry Jason, I don't have alot of information on the articles I am making, but my INTENT was to get things started, and have other users contribute the rest. You've gone and marked for deletion more than half of EVERYTHING I created, which was kind of rude considering that they all had only been on Wikipedia for LESS THAN AN HOUR!!! I'd appreciate it if you stopped marking all my articles for deletion, when you honestly had no idea what it was you were removing. Keep. (I am the creator of this and all the other articles appended to my IP address. Please vote to keep all of the articles I made. I promise they are all relevant, contrary to how small or short they may be.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 Jun 2005

• • Several of the articles that you have created are, in fact, I still feel, subject for deletion (SDIC, Andrew Harrison, and ASU Cares). I was wrong to add WP Carey to the VfD page, but please keep in mind that, at the time, the only text on the page was "William Polk Carey - Benefactor to the Arizona State University College of Business." I agree that I ought to have done more research before adding him to VfD, but there are many articles added every day with text like that (or, in some cases, more carefully thought-out and thoroughly written text) that are absolute hogwash.
  • The fact that one of your creations has encyclopaedic relevence does not affect the status of the other articles, which have little pertinence to anyone outside of your immediate university community; if an event such as ASU Cares is encyclopaedic, then so is my university's Community Day. I might also add that the most important fact about Mr. Carey - that he heads a large financial institution - was not mentioned in your article. jglc | t | c 03:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not create these in one section on the ASU page. If they do grow to be encylopedic there to the point that they need an article then you can merge the text to a new page. Also being in one place it is more likely that someone will see them and work on them as a group. Vegaswikian 05:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 17:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dermovision

Bizzarre. Seeing through your skin. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably too obscure term. WordIQ may have had a Wikipedia article "Dermovision", although it is no more on the site or in the Google archive. So it may be an article that has been removed earlier.--Jyril 20:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I say it's unverifiable. There are google hits for the term under paranormal and ESP sites, though. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Pburka 02:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Quite a few paranormal site hits, should be re-edited to include the fact that it is a paranormal belief but should be kept. -CunningLinguist 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's verifiable that some people believe this. Kappa 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Míchel Salgado

Seems to be vanity, nn. You (Talk) 19:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Not vanity. Looking at what links there shows he is a current Real Madrid player. However, complete text of article is: "born at 1976, right back, played also for Celta Vigo". If someone can provide some context to meet WP:BIO, keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • change to keep. User:Proto has demonstrated Salgado's encyclopedic interest. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. He's a notable professional athlete. Pburka 02:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. RickK 05:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded. JamesBurns 06:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, definitely notable - will try and expand. Proto 09:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, extremely notable.  Grue  19:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was speedy deleted at 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 by MacGyverMagic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kiddos

Not notable, possible vanity/nonsense. You (Talk) 19:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was speedy deleted at 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 by Infrogmation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bennet

nn, possible vanity/nonsense. You (Talk) 19:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I take it this one wasn't about the character from Pride and Prejudice? (Someone seems to have already speedied it). Grutness...wha? 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all. – ABCD 30 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Calgary (Senate division)

and Edmonton (Senate division), Toronto-Centre-York (Senate division), Ontario (Senate division). These articles are based on an incorrect premise: other than Quebec, Canadian provinces do not have fixed Senate divisions. Senators may or may not chose to designate Senate divisions, but these designations have no practical meaning. The article "Canadian Senate divisions" has been re-written to reflect this. The creator of these incorrect articles has not participated in the discussion about re-writing this article. (If anyone can move the second two articles up into the title, please do so.) Ground Zero 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete these Senate divisions are indeed meaningless. They have no standing in law (they are not included in the Royal Proclamation when a senator is appointed, the senator is said to represent the whole province in the proclamation), they have no defined geographic boundaries and they can cease to exist and be re-created at the whim of any senator in the province. - Jord 19:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment the map on the Toronto-Centre-York (Senate division) is the work of Senator Anne Cools' office but it has no legal or practical status as being "official". - Jord 20:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Inaccurate articles. These divisions do not Constitutionally exist. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but some content could perhaps be moved to the pages on the individual senators. - SimonP 00:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the delete; my concern is that can't just kill the one article as there are others. Somebody needs to be careful to make sure that we kill any and all "Senate division" articles and that we unlink any surviving redlinks to them. Big job, kids. Bearcat 08:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really a big job. these are the only three that I identified as being problematic. The other live links from the original article were to (a) articles about the territories' electoral (H of C) districts which included references to the senators; and (b) articles about the Quebec Senate divisions, which are legitimate, as far as i know. And then there was only one in the (b) category. The person who started this ill-advsied project didn't get very far before abandoning it. As far as unlinking, I have no problem doing that. This is only my second-ever fD nomination. My first, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liberal landslide went through yesterday, and I dutifully cleaned up the links to that. Ground Zero 13:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all per Ground Zero and Jord. Any non-Quebec senate divisions do not exist (are not fixed) and should therefore be deleted. Each non-Quebec province gets a certain number of Senate seats that have nothing to do with geographic location within the province. --Deathphoenix 14:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have added Ontario (Senate division) to the list. I hope no-one objects. This, too, suffers from the problems identified above. Ground Zero 14:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • From what I know, Senate seats are assigned by province. I'm not sure that a province suffers from the same problems as each "Senate division" within each province (though I'd like this disambig to use something different than "Senate division"). --Deathphoenix 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Really what this becomes is a "List of Ontario Senators", and includes those "representing" Toronto, Northern Ontario, and Punkydoodles Corners. But is this needed? Do we not already have categories for present and former Senators? Do we need to break them down by province? Ground Zero 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I can see how a List of Ontario Senators would be useful. When I looked at List of Canadian Senators, which is in alphabetical order, I could see how someone would like to see a list of the senators by province. Perhaps this list could be divided by province, then by surname. Such a discussion is probably irrelevant to this VfD, but I'll agree with your Ontario (Senate division). --Deathphoenix 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on comments from DeathPhoenix and Cloveious, I think the best approach to this article would be to move it to "List of Ontario senators", instead of deleting, and use it for all present and former senators who represented Ontario and senate divisions within Ontario. Ground Zero 14:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This has now been done - thanks User:Bearcat. Ground Zero 12:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, these articles are correct. and list Senators from the divisions listed historically, even if Senate divisions are secondary to regional distribution. I think people have a stick up there rear end on this one and it seems to me they are whipped up into a frenzy because they dislike the senate.

Senate constituency offices do actually exist inside Senate divisions.

The Senate Consitituency Office for Calgary is

Suite 650, 1207 - 11 Ave.S.W. Calgary, Alberta T3C 0M5 Phone: 403-244-3111

Keep it because, People have a right to see a list of Senators that have represented there geographical area, and the dates they represented that area.

Senate divisions were important more historically when people had to go to Senators to get Private bills introduced in the senate and house to get a divorce before, family law was deligated to the courts, and travel and communications were not very good compared to today. I can back that up with News Paper articles from the turn of the Century.

The Ontario division is stated as a Senate division "At Large" representing areas not covered by senators covering specific areas inside the article.

And no, they are not controlled by a boundaries commission like electoral districts, and that won't change until Senate reform happens.

See James Lougheed Senate Profile from the Government of Canada Website

The government of Canada actually took the time to note Senate divisions represented and days when senate divisions changed.

Here is another Government of Canada link to a Senate Committee list The Legal and Consitituional Affairs Committee notice how they took the time to list the Senate divisions on there to?

and furthermore here is a Hansard transcript on the retirement of John Lynch-Staunton noting that he is in the Grandville Senate division [13] --Cloveious 06:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cloveious, I have repsonded to your comments at Talk:Canadian Senate divisions Ground Zero 13:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cloveious, the point is that beyond the level of the province, a Senate division can be called anything the sitting senator wants it to be called (s/he could even call it "Hellsmouth-Sunnydale-Buffyverse", iffen s/he wanted to), but there aren't any formal boundaries and they're still constitutionally deemed to represent the whole province. Even with the divisional name "Toronto/Bloor & Yonge", Peter Stollery is not really considered the senator for just one street corner in downtown Toronto, and that divisional name will most likely never exist again after Stollery dies or retires. I fully support a list of senators grouped by province, but outside of Quebec, senate subdivisions really, truly, don't exist except as null placeholders. (It's the political equivalent of buying a coloured faceplate for your iPod — it personalizes your iPod and makes it a little more unique, but it doesn't fundamentally change the iPod into something it isn't.) And if you think we're opposed to this just because we dislike the Senate, dude, you're seriously out to lunch. Bearcat 21:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buck Dog

Fiction Big_Iron 19:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. Patent nonsense. Pburka 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erik Borgman

Website mentions juggling in the Amsterdam Arena stadium for 45,000 people and work for TV and film. Isn't speedy as such. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP This item should be kept! Dwain 22:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems to be sufficiently notable. Pburka 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Todoism

"As of January 1, 2005, there were five hundred million Todos in the world, making it one of the largest religious society ever. It is the official religion of the Domain of the Wikipedia." Um, right. Obviously nonsense, but doesn't seem to be patent. Does this really have to go through a full vfd? (For the record, 32 google hits, all of which seem to be about a song.) --Cryptic (talk) 20:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - 68.23.104.92 20:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't this the guy who recreated the Todoism article? - 68.72.119.51 21:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Clear patent nonsense. For example, no Google hits for "Malistult", "Benextir", or "Book of Todoism".--Jyril 20:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Splash 21:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Not factual. --Xcali 21:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "To-do lists have become so prevalent that they're kinda like a religion". Yes, we are to be splitting the sides, yes? Yes! Ha ha ha! These jokesters, they are to be commended for their masterfully insightful funnitudes, yes? Ha ha ha! ...away with this stellar wit with all good speed, I say -- away with the hoaxy stuff, rapidamente! Yes! YES! -- Captain Disdain 01:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Patent enough for me. Delete, and speedily. -R. fiend 06:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - 68.72.119.51 18:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

WOW

Band vanity by the looks of things. The name makes it difficult to verify, but they look like a local band just starting out. I can't speak Norwegian though. Good luck to them, but they don't seem to be notable. Leithp 20:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Without English links, unverifiable to be notable for en.wikipedia. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Also not found on no:WOW. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to wow. -Sean Curtin 23:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. Nothing on allmusic.com about them. --Etacar11 00:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to wow, which should have something for Worlds of Wonder, which, if I recall, is the company that made Teddy Ruxpin. -R. fiend 06:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Michael Chubak

This person is not notable, nor does he exist anywhere... church denomination in his name? vanity, possibly even speedy deleteion candidate - CobaltBlueTony 20:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete attempted humour vanity page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy I tagged it as such earlier, but it appears that the author removed the tag. --Xcali 21:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/joke. Sounds like Chewbacca. --Etacar11 00:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Pburka 01:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some proof of notability is presented.--Poli 18:55, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Indianapolis 505

While the content is technically true, this is already mentioned in Indy 500 and there is nothing further added in this article. Leithp 20:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Indianapolis 500. Redirects are cheap, fun, and easier... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless. Might confuse someone. No such thing as Indianapolis 505. Are we going to create Indianapolis 450 for Buddy Rice or Indianapolis 257.5 for Johnny Rutherford? This is already covered in Indy 500. --Xcali 21:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Indianapolis 500. Content is already there and more complete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is such a silly article that it doesn't even deserve the space that a redirect page takes. --Rogerd 00:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect SchmuckyTheCat 04:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless duplication. JamesBurns 06:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - duplication. --FCYTravis 09:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless if it is already in Indianapolis 500.--Poli 18:53, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kristalaz

Vanity page. Jyril 20:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 23:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 00:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am sure he is a great boy, but not encyclopedic (at least yet).--Poli 18:51, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Scott Martin

Can't find any information about this individual using Google, which is surprising if the information contained within the article were correct... Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I also tried to find info about Scott Martin, but came up empty. I suspect a hoax. Pburka 21:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/hoax. --Etacar11 00:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge merge with a page like bad_grammar Muijzo 00:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some proves me this is not a hoax.--Poli 18:51, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zenon Company

Delete - Basically an ad, not notable, not encyc. Google yields about 5 useful hits for Martin Marion Zenon, no discernable hits for Martin Marion, and only 2 for Zenon Company - one of which is their own website.-Splash 21:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, then...Marty and Clay promised me a dollar for evertime I have to put this back up. Seeky 21:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• A dollar a time? That's a novel use for the Wikipedia! However, if you don't think it should on here either, you could speed the process up by nominating it for speedy deletion, by editing the page and putting {{deletebecause|Original author thinks it should be speedily deleted}} at the top of the page (and removing the {{vfd}} tag). -Splash 21:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Um...really? I'm not sure...I mean, awuu? Look, I'm employed here...I can't ask them to delete it! Do you have any suggestions for how to edit? (btw, try just Zenon for deletion, if you're a zealot!

Seeky 21:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If you really want it to stay, you will have to provide convincing evidence of the company's notability and it's encyclopedic value — mere advertisement, hastily written doesn't do that. See the page about what the Wikipedia is not for guidance on what will probably be removed by the end of VfD process. As for Zenon, yes, well, quite. However, I reckon they had more hits than you on Google.-Splash 21:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that make this an ad? Speedy delete --Xcali 21:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it does imo meet the criteria for being speedied. I have removed the external link wqhile this debate is in process. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm out for today. If it's gone by tomorrow, one dollar for me. Any constructive advice on how to de-ad-ify it, go ahead. Seeky 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If I'm reading this right, it seems to be both spam and a perpetual threat of re-creation. Seeky might be joking, or might not. In any case, Speedy delete and protect from re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect. If Seeky is putting it back up repeatedly, recommend someone point him out to an admin (or the admin that sees this VFD look at him... :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising.--Poli 18:49, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Sigh. No threat. Kiss it goodbye. And, note to Consumed Crustacean, I'm female. 24.13.204.157 17:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babushka

• del. It is kinda sorta dicdef, but not even a dicdef. Already transwikied, see talk:Babushka. mikka (t) 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's also a Kate Bush song, among other things. 178,000 Google hits. If we can't make an encyclopedia article out of this, we just aren't trying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hey, my grandma was a babushka! You can't delete my grandma! -- BD2412 ^talk 23:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Ehhh. Keep (sorta, I guess). It's not all that important on its own, but the article also acts as a disambig. However, just because it has google results doesn't make it important. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Could be expanded and cleaned up. Pburka 01:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an article-worthy cultural image; this stub is labelled a "dicdef" for the flaw of beginning at the beginning. And start making it a comprehensive article by merging the idiosyncratically titled babushka lady here also. Smerdis of Tlön 03:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Even if it was just Kate Bush's song it is still notable. JamesBurns 06:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep actually, the song and the cultural implications would merit articles on their own Lectonar 09:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--Poli 18:47, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Young Avenue Deli

spam. Delete. Fingers-of-Pyrex 22:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad. Pburka 01:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 18:46, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Darker My Love

The author of this article has already had several articles speedied because of vanity. This one could very well be vanity, and even if it isn't, I doubt this band is notable enough to have an article Aecis 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. They have a Myspace site, that gets top Google results (and anyone can make one of those, definately not a sign of notability). Also a few sites with notices of one of their gigs. Nothing that would make them seem to be any more notable than any thousands of other small bands. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe Merge with The Distillers? (who are definitely notable) Pburka 01:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete garage band vanity. JamesBurns 06:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yet Another Garage Band. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• don't delete this, i know this band and they are definetly notable in the scene they play in. (Unsigned comment by 24.63.232.99 (talk · contribs))

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

SMARTCODE CORP.

Seems like a promotional ad to me. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 22:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "low cost, high performance", "low cost", "leading", "leading", "exclusive", "solutions"... If this isn't an ad, I don't know what is. Aecis 22:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) The fixing has changed my vote from delete to either weak delete or weak keep. I'm still not sure how notable this company is. That will determine my vote.
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Heh. Not as clever as others. Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Now a world leader in Delete votes. Pburka 01:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It looks like the page was fixed. Probably the writer was unfamiliar with the guidelines. Bobix 11:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks like a borderline notable company with all the advertising removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 07:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Upper Darby High School (UDHS), Upper Darby Senior High School (second title is now a redirect to the first one)

Duplicate page created by an anon. School, is non-notable, refined Google search only brought back five hits. Kross 22:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) ^{(Nomination for original article)}

Non-notable school. A refined Google search only brought up five hits. Kross 22:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) ^{(Nomination for duplicate article)}

• ^{(votes for original article)}

• Keep. Being the "largest high school by enrollment in the state of Pennsylvania" makes it interesting. Anyway schools shouldn't require google hits. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments for more discussion. Kappa 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm quite sick of the "Google test", to be perfectly honest. If you think it's not notable, tell me. Saying me there were only five hits only shows other people didn't note it often. That is not the same as saying it shouldn't be noted, or is insignificant. Furthermore, I have little respect for nominations that do not provide a reason listed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That lists the ONLY acceptable reasons to delete. Superm401 | Talk 23:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Upper Darby High School (UDHS). It appears that UDSHS is the historical name and UDHS is the current one. [14] DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

^{(votes for duplicate article)}

*Redirect to Upper Darby High School and it can share the same fate as that article. Kappa 23:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, it appears that the UDSHS is a former name of the school and it is current UDHS, so I recommend keeping this version. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - VfD's have now been combined for efficiency of voting. This should not cause any confusion, as no one had cast an actual up-or-down vote in both.-- BD2412 ^talk 00:25, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Please continue to cast new votes below

• Keep with the condition that someone cleanup the notable alumni list. I don't know if the red links are notable or not and we should not need to look up everyone of them. Vegaswikian 05:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of them are from UDHS Wall of Fame link which is in the External links section of the article. A short bio of each is linked from there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Once you've taken out the redlink packing of alumni, there's not a lot of info there, and would be more useful merged with the local geographical article, since that is where all the students come from. Average Earthman 08:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, it's in Drexel Hill, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Average Earthman 08:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The alumni list is nothing short of astonishing. Todd Rundgren and Jim Croce, it's stunning that two major talents of late twentieth century populat music attended the same school. I am looking at the redlinks, too, and a simple google search is turning up fantastic stuff. A President of the Brookings Institute, the founder of a huge security contractor, several major authors, and I'm not even a third of the way down the list. This school passes any notability test you would care to set. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — more notable than a tube station. :) — RJH 15:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, by the way, just for Tina Fey.  ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 15:29, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh she wrote Mean Girls! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at the school's current name. Gazpacho 02:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All schools should have an article if Wikikpedia is to fulfil its potential. CalJW 11:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the school is notable for both the size and the notable people who attended it. And also because I spent the last four years there. :) --Imagist 12:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This was Imagist's seventh edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please thats alot of famous alumni Yuckfoo 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 06:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are notable to me, but article does need more content.--Poli 18:44, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Keep. Holy crap, what an alumni list! Unfocused 05:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've never heard of this school, but with so many famous alumni, it's hard to tell it no. --Idont Havaname 23:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kettle Principle

The article describes a well-known joke about mathematics which was already described on Mathematician#Jokes. However, the term Kettle Principle seems to be a neologism, or at least extremely rarely used: None of the resident mathematicians know it (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Kettle Principle, and Google doesn't yield anything either. Hence, delete (and don't even create a redirect). Jitse Niesen 23:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 23:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Or move to Wikipedia:BJAODN linas 00:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and do not redirect.-Splash 00:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless someone can provide a source for the term "kettle principle". Paul August ☎ 01:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Dominus 03:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Fropuff 04:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. JamesBurns 06:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Golbez 06:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vector space example 1, Vector space example 2 and Vector space example 3

Delete, not encyclopaedic. These are standard examples of vector space, of which it is showed in painstaking detail that they are indeed vector spaces. They are quite possibly solutions of exercises from some text book. The gist of the examples is described in examples of vector spaces. By the way, is it okay to list several closely related pages for deletion like this? -- Jitse Niesen 23:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I encountered them before. Badly written. Now that we have examples of vector spaces, these are also reduntant. So,

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 23:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For sure, Deletize -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:34, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Their useful content is in examples of vector spaces. Paul August ☎ 01:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Dominus 04:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Fropuff 04:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but perhaps also Transwiki proofs to an appropriate Wikibook? Just a thought... - dcljr (talk) 05:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Splash 12:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge in Vector space.--Poli 18:42, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Masud Rahman

The user who has repeatedly submitted this article to wikipedia refuses to accept my opinion that it is unencyclopedic and non-notable. I have therefore decided to open it up for debate among other users. See User talk:163.1.227.76 Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 23:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Has a strong autobiography feel. Undergraduates discovering drinking and sex are non notable. Secretlondon 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the papers of Masud Rahman are linked to this page I suggest this rather unnecessary commotion will wither away. Furthermore, comments about 'drinking' and 'sex' are highly offensive and completely unsupported by the content of the article. 163.1.227.76 23:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a clear autobiography. Most of the article is about his friends. If he really deserves an article then the article will talk about his notable work in physics. Secretlondon 23:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The biography does indeed have a surprising focus on his private life, but, as I just suggested, links to Mr. Rahman's papers are currently be prepared for the page. Furthermore, an anaylsis of the psychology behind his esoteric and meritous work at such a young age is highly valid. 163.1.227.76 23:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I too added at least two speedy deletes to the page and continue to think it should go without debate. The author is non-notable, non-encyclopedic, vain. For the author's reference - here is what Wikipedia is not. -Splash 00:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, for chrissakes... If Mr. Rahman at some point establishes himself as a brilliant, young noteworthy scientist by actually, y'know, accomplishing something, he's welcome to his Wikipedia entry. For now, he's just this guy. Delete this silly shit. -- Captain Disdain 00:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I get 182 hits on ADS, but most are definitely not this guy (diff first names, and wrong countries, not on quantum physics), and the others...can't tell if they are him. Right now this just seems like vanity. --Etacar11 00:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Avast! Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I object! I am trying to compile a study of a young, eminent scientist. Surely, Wikepedia is designed to promote the spread of knowledge about eminent people, in any field. Thus, I urge you all to stop hounding my page on Mr. Rahman; Wikepedia is no place to criticise the development of science, or the merit psychological profiles. Please take the time to look both at the content of the page, and this discussion before promoting the deletion of this page. 163.1.227.76 01:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, Votes for Deletion give you 5 days to convince the Wikipedia community of what you say and at the moment, they don't look convinced. Do a good job improving the page, and I'm sure the voting patterns will change. Carry on as you are, and you'll be lucky if the article is still here this time tomorrow.-Splash 01:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity article. Pburka 01:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Undergraduates are not 'eminent scientists'. Which papers has he published? Average Earthman 08:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clear vanity. Feydey 08:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• SAVE. Clearly not vanity. A very absorbing and informative article about a young Muslim male. Are all you guys anti-Islamic or something? That kind of sentiment is not welcome in Wikipedia. Be warned, this is a community for everyone. 163.1.227.76 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am an avid inclusionist, but this makes no attempt to be an encyclopaedia article. It is a personal web page. As far as Wikipedians being anti-Islamic, please reveiew the above comments. NOT ONE COMMENT has made any reference, allusion or innuendo to him being Muslim. Being Muslim or Christian or atheist does not give anyone a bye past normal Wikipedia standards. You could just as easily argue that people are being anti-British or anti-scientist. I think we're just being anti-git, and there's no law against that. Shame on you for playing the prejudice card. There is real racism and real Islamophobia out there that hurts people in real ways everday. Hiding behind that when you're just trying to get some free webspace is appalling. Ground Zero 15:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• SAVE I do not wish to comment on the previous comment's author, but to call himself, Ground Zero, clearly a reference to the 9/11 tragedy, and an indication of the author's support for actions taken by various governments against Muslim peoples across the globe, and yet still pertain to not be anti-Islamic, is disgraceful, and frankly, quite hurtful to me, and the millions of Islamic people in this world. Please do not print anti-Islamic sentiment on Wikipedia.163.1.227.76 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it not only sad but also infuriating that people create crappy vanity articles and then, when the inevitable VfD comes up, spin the whole thing into some kind of a sob story about how they're being oppressed for their religion. There are plenty of people out there who're hurting for real because of bigotry; whenever someone comes up with bullshit like this when faced with the consequences of their own vanity, it's a fucking insult to those who really are suffering from anti-Islamic sentiment, people who don't have the luxury of giggling over the big stink they're making on Wikipedia over a badly-written personal article about someone's infatuations and pretending that it's vital to the plight of Muslims everywhere. I don't have anything against Muslims, man... it's just you I don't like much. -- Captain Disdain 22:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you not realize that the word "Ground Zero" refers not only to the WTC event? How are you even getting Anti-Islamist statements out of that anyways? It could be Pro-Terrorist for all you know. This is not the way to argue for your article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I presume the arguments about the article being unfounded are based on google searches and the like. In which case I would suggest that the author be allowed to compile the list of papers published to see if he merits an article. If people have a problem with the rest of the article, be bold, as I'm constantly reminded, and change it. On the vanity front, the same user is being accused of vanity on two separate pages, are you suggesting he's schizophrenic? Spaully 15:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Despite all his claims to fame and glory, he as so far produced one refernce. That is a broken link. By way of diligence, Google turned this up instead. Whether it is by the author is hard to tell (thuogh given it's dire standard it could be - and it's from Oxford Uni, where he's studying), but it's pretty clear that it is just an undergrad practical done badly. An eminent scientist should do better than that!-Splash 15:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• The name at the end of that writeup is 'Maksym Shostak'. Spaully 15:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The science that will, hopefully, be unearthed from Mr. Rahman could be noteworthy. User Splash seems to be letting his own vendetta against Oxford University (he is studying at Bristol University where many Oxbridge rejects end up) taint his feelings towards the article. Furthermore, his inability to access the link is not be due to it being broken, as I was able to access it. Jc57 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've just tried to access the link from a different ISP, different IP and different computer and none of them work. Perhaps it only works on internal Oxford links. Spaully - I know the article isn't signed by the IP address in question and I specifically said it was "hard to tell" whether it was by the same person. For your information, Jc57 I have the very greatest respect for the University of Oxford, I'm glad you do to, I never applied there and I hope you enjoy your time at Uni as much as I still am mine. In the meantime, quit inflating your ego via Wikipedia and taking sideswipes at other users. In the academic community, in which I now work, respect for those you disagree with is valued as highly as doing great work. -Splash 00:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• To whomever wrote this article or is defending it: if Masud Rahman is truly notable as a scientist, then the article about him should be devoted to his scientific work -- but right now, the majority of the article is about the friends who distracted him from his undergraduate studies by doing things like leading him to get a Beatles haircut. If you get the scientific work into the article and the social life out, I would reconsider my vote. But based on the current content, I will vote to delete. --Metropolitan90 03:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Clear and present vanity. --FCYTravis 07:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's articles like this for which VfD was created. jglc | t | c 07:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of friends removed, article substantially changed. - 10:00, 18 June

• Keep - article now changed, suggest people reconsider their votes. Spaully 10:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Secretlondon did that as well if you look at thie history; it was added back again very soon afterwards. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see that. Well if it is added back in again then we can remove this, but if it is not, then it does change the article. Spaully 10:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Why? It's still completely unverifiable. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well people who voted based on it being unverifiable will not change their vote then, but some voted based on the list of friends making it a vanity page. Pburka, JamesBurns, Feydey, Ground Zero, Metropolitan90 and FCYTravis voted based on vanity (I say again this seems odd given the same user is being accused of vanity over 2 people). Spaully 11:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't refer to vanity per se in my earlier vote, but out of fairness I will change my vote to abstain. --Metropolitan90 15:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Spaully, you've now got two votes on here - could you strike one of them in the name of fairness? My vote stands, and creating what appears to be a new VfD on the basis of blanking most of the page is inappropriate, IMHO, seeing as you know it's already been tried once. My vote stands.-Splash 14:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Vote struck (forgot about that). Horizontal line also removed, although I think it is important people realise there has been a change to the article. Spaully 14:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It still reads as vanity. A child prodigy? Those glowing remarks about his family? I'm afraid I can't change my delete vote.Ground Zero 03:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Likewise. The article still does not establish notability. That's a key thing. -- Captain Disdain 07:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article link does not work, and even if it did, it doesn't seem to have been published by any major journal. And even if it was, I have papers in journals and chapters in books, and still no article about myself.--Poli 18:40, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • Boo-f*****g-hoo. "I've published papers, where's my Geekipedia page?!". Quit crying and stop hating your superior peers. - Unsigned comment by Caster Troy (talk · contribs)

Note: Caster Troy (talk · contribs), Jc57 (talk · contribs) and 163.1.227.76 (talk · contribs) are probably one and the same - compare user contributions. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babelport

vanity advertisement

• Delete. Ad spam. DS1953 23:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the free advertising. -- Captain Disdain 00:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Bahahaha. Delete. This is the worst attempt at subtle advertising I've yet seen. Always a laugh to be found. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it is not an ad, it's non notable.--Poli 18:35, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Darth Malficious

Non-canon character, probably fanmade. A Google search only brought back the Star Wars stub category its listed on. A search under Darth Malicious (suggested by Google) did not turn up anything either. Kross 23:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The only Google result is to the Wikipedia. 'tis great. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No genuine google hits, and doesn't fit in with what is known of Sidious' apprentices either. --maru 05:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fan cruft. JamesBurns 06:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fanfiction, not canon. Not even fancruft because fancruft is of interest to fans. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some remarkable new information on this character arises.--Poli 18:34, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above Gary D Robson 18:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Urbik

nn, vanity, also duplicate of Michael urbik. You (Talk) 20:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity, creator has vandalized our user pages with vfd tags in apparent revenge and keeps blanking the vfds for his pages. --Etacar11 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• And ejking also removed them from the Vfd log. --Etacar11 23:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons that have been stated in the other two. Crazy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above.Splash 00:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity.--Kross 02:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Michael urbik

Not notable. You (Talk) 17:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete He's done some voluteer work and been mentioned in some local newspapers. Nice guy, but not worthy of an article. Sonic Mew 17:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. Always with a picture... There's also an article for his dad, Jerry Urbik, also seems nn. --Etacar11 18:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I put Jerry Urbik on vfd also. You (Talk) 18:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the creator of this page vandalized both my and You's user pages, with VfD notices. Not good. --Etacar11 23:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• And the creator also removed this page from the VfD log. --Etacar11 23:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just isn't notable. -- Captain Disdain 00:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, created by a relative or himself or something, as shown by the author's contribs and VFD votes. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, along with the other 2.Splash 00:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page.--Kross 02:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Urbik

Vanity, not notable. You (Talk) 18:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sure he and his son are decent people, but, yeah, vanity. --Etacar11 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If he wants his page, let him have it. He's not like saying anything invalid, illicit, or profane. Wikipedia is about ANYONE being able to put something in, as long as it follows its guidelines, and this guy does. --24.14.255.35 15:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, one of the guidelines is notability. You (Talk) 21:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it happens, Anonymous there is correct -- Wikipedia is about ANYONE being able to put something in. However, it is not about someone being able to put ANYTHING in. Mr. Urbik is undoubtedly a cool guy, but I don't think he's notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia... and that is a criterion for inclusion. -- Captain Disdain 21:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am his grandson, who wrote the page (and as far as vanity, he is not, he doesn't even know what wikipedia is). He is very notable. Actually he is a very good friend of Rocky Bleier and his insurance guy. He also has many connections with many renowned people, even Ronald Reagan. I am not done writing this page yet so give me a chance and you will see how notable and "Wiki-Worthy" he is! --ejking 16:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that this user vandalized both my and You's user pages (by putting VfD notices on them) does not help his case. --Etacar11 23:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And he removed them from the VfD log as well. --Etacar11 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, ejking, the term "vanity page" does not refer to the vanity of the individual the page is about, but rather it describes the fact that it exists only because someone wants to promote that person. That, however, does not mean that the subject of the article is notable enough to interest the rest of the world. Of course, hey, maybe we're wrong and your grandpa is a notable guy. If that's the case, you have at least five days to convince us by editing the page accordingly to show why he's notable to the world at large and. That said, take my advice -- adding VfD tags on others' user pages isn't going to win you any goodwill here. -- Captain Disdain 00:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - and the two articles above, I'm too lazy to actually vote seperately on all three. --Kiand 23:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity of the highest degree! And unverifiable "connections" with notable persons does not make one notable on their own. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or if they're going to be really difficult about this, then userfy. See if they like it so much when it turns up there...Splash 00:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page.--Kross 02:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and because I enjoy voting against people with "connections" to Ronald Reagan when possible. Xoloz 04:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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