Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was title redirected to Index of topics in alternative medicine. Cyrius|✎ 05:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of miscellaneous topics related to alternative medicine

There is no reason for both this and Index of topics in alternative medicine to exist. Snowspinner 22:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, redundant/duplicate page, no redirect. Megan1967 06:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect. Gazpacho 06:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
KEEP I just edited this List to make the introduction consistent with the new name. This article happens to be an index or list of other articles on alternative medicine. It happens to be part of a set of 5 Lists called the Core Project Lists and Articles of the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. Together these 5 Lists provide a master list of alternative medicine topics. What does this list do? Quoting Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes: "Lists have a substantial advantage over categories and series boxes in that they can be annotated. A list can include items that do not yet have an article, and can also show series or groups where the items would be completely separate on the category page. A well-annotated list may duplicate a category, but not be redundant with it."[1]. That is precisely what this List does for miscellaneous topics in alternative medicine. The key difference betweeny this list and Index of topics in alternative medicine is that this list as the quote states above includes items that do not yet have an article. In other words, it is how the project on alternative medicine is suggesting what new articles can be written by any editor. Index of topics in alternative medicine lists only articles currently existing on Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 13:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It is not accidental that I did not list five CAM lists on VfD. List articles are fine. I love list articles. Miscellaneous topics, index of topics, and terms and concepts, however, do not have any clear difference among them, thus two of the three should go. Snowspinner 14:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  - Each of the 5 lists covers a different topic. As the guideline you have been referring me to lately states, lists can make suggestions for new articles that can be written. That is what this List does. You could merge the red color open links into the Index as those are articles that have not been written yet. But, I see no reason to mess with it. It is fine just the way it is. -- John Gohde 14:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - You are misunderstanding the guideline. Perhaps this is because it is unclear. I am not sure. Regardles, yes. One of the advantages of lists is that they can show places where Wikipedia needs expansion. However, that is an advantage - not a primary purpose. If the major purpose of this article is a form of "pages needing creation/expansion," it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace and filed under your Wikiproject. Snowspinner 17:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
      - I was under the impression that making comments like yours in a VfD vote was not permitted. Am I wrong on this? And, why are you constantly talking about guidelines, as if you had the final authority on every guideline? You do not seem to be very knowledgeable about many things, such as to what you are trying to delete for who knows what reason. -- John Gohde 13:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
man that is a badly defined article. Delete.Geni 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Index of topics in alternative medicine and delete, unless someone can explain to me the distinction between this article and "index of topics" article, which so far, I fail to see. Paul August ☎ 17:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Index of topics in alternative medicine and delete --Lee Hunter 19:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but move overlapping topics to List of branches of alternative medicine and List of famous people in alternative medicine as appropriate so that the list is indeed miscellaneous. Remove the sub-list of Illness targeted by alternative treatments. Move List of terms and concepts used in alternative medicine to Glossary of alternative medicine. Index of topics in alternative medicine could then just be a list of lists. --Zigger 19:23, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
I'm neutral on exactly the disposition of this, but can we get consensus that at the very least it would be appropriate to keep in Wikipedia space or user space? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
If not deleted, move to the project space - David Gerard 13:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article deleted, no content needed merging. Cyrius|✎ 05:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of alternative medicine

This article was originally redirected by Snowspinner because it was a List rather than an article. Even though User:Snowspinner has no interest in alternative medicine, Snowspinner decided to make it into a stub article. It should be changed back to a redirect, otherwise all the old links will erronously be sent to this new stub. John Gohde

Redirect to List of miscellaneous topics related to alternative medicine -- John Gohde 20:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oops! I wrote the wrong link the first time around. I aplogize for the confusion. It went from the List of topics on the philosophy of alternative medicine to the present name of List of miscellaneous topics related to alternative medicine because some editors felt that philosophy of alternative medicine was not quite descriptive of the contents of this List. -- John Gohde 13:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to remind you that you are voting on what to do with the newly created stub article: Philosophy of alternative medicine.-- John Gohde 13:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge with Alternative medicine and redirect there. Why don't you just change the links to point to the right article? Snowspinner 20:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Why do these few sentences need to be separate from Alternative medicine? What was planned as the expansion of this article? Alternative medicine, being only 27K bytes in length, still has room, and this is only one paragraph. By the time it is cleaned up and worked into Alternative medicine, it probably mostly evaporates since there isn't much here. I don't see how Philosophy of alternative medicine is at all a reasonable redirect to List of terms and concepts used in alternative medicine. There isn't anything obvious on the list of terms and concepts that relates to "philosophy" of alternative medicine, although I must admit I don't have a clue what "philosophy" of alternative medicine might be. Neither does anyone else, apparently, since the article is still a stub. Right now, I am having a hard time seeing why this article should not just be deleted. --BM 22:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This wasn't an article previously, it was a list that was eventually merged into another list. I say merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  - It hasn't been merged into another list, actually. It's just been moved around a couple of dozen times. I think, right now, it's at List of miscellaneous topics related to alternative medicine. So you should specify, what exactly did you want to redirect to? That list, John's list, Alternative medicine or what? Snowspinner 03:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Alternative medicine, no redirect. Megan1967 06:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Delete, we could end up with a zillion "philosphy of..." redirects. Later ther ecould be cause for a seperate article as the main one grows. Rich Farmbrough 16:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Alternative medicine and Delete. And fix all of the articles that link to it. Paul August ☎ 16:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete. --Zigger 18:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
Merge with Ztlernative medicine.Ganymead 23:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Category-spamming. Merge and redirect - David Gerard 13:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[[O_Projecto_%E9_Grave%21]]

not notable nor encyclopdeic --BenWilson 19:22, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Johntex 21:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete; no evidence that it meets WikiProject Music's notability guidelines. —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. There were many suggestions that merging with The Wack Pack would be appropriate. Joyous 16:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Beetlejuice the Dwarf

Only 56 hits on google. [2] Does this meet the acceptable threshold for includability? GRider\^talk 17:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That search is too narrow because he is typically credited as only beetlejuice, not "beetlejuice the dwarf". if you do a search with beetlejuice and howard stern (to eliminate the beetlejuice the mvie hits) you get nearly 10,000 hits detailing his stern appearances, TV appearances, movies, and wrestling.Xpendersx 19:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep not my cup of tea, but seems notable enough to keep. Johntex 21:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As disgusting as he may be, he's notable. Carrp | Talk 21:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete under the bar in more ways than one. I like the idea of merging to The Wack Pack Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Tens of thousands of Google hits with Stern-related searches. +Beetlejuice +Stern has 13,100. Drew3D 23:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Notable vertically challenged actor. Megan1967 06:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename to Beetlejuice (or add redirect) Radiant! 08:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to The Wack Pack. These characters all seem to have small one or two paragraph articles that would be more useful collected in one place. Don't rename to Beetlejuice; there's already an article there about the (more famous) movie, and it has a disambig notice. A concerned citizen is welcome to move the disambig notice to the top of the article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with TenOfAllTrades, Keep, merge, redirect --nixie 01:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to The Wack Pack, as has been done with several other members of that group, I believe. -R. fiend 10:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'merge' Yuckfoo 03:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Carolaman
Keep, and rename. JamesBurns 10:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Death phoenix 08:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chu Wing Kit

Is this vanity? Worthy of note? 34 hits on google. [3] GRider\^talk 17:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Johntex 21:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable criminal. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non notable criminal - only 33 Google hits. Megan1967 06:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Very very weak keep. It's unusual for someone in treasury to steal 10 million pounds, so there might be something to be said there. --JuntungWu 12:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, albeit weakly. Sheer number of Google hits is not always the most useful reference; his theft was reported by New York Times, The BBC, The Times of London and The Telegraph; international media coverage is, by definition, a suggestion of notability. Also, note that his name was sometimes reported as Wing Kit Chu, which turns up an additional 164 Google hits.
- That vote was from User:Jacobw. JuntungWu 17:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- D'oh--yes, it was from me. Sorry, forgot to sign it.--Jacobw 17:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
weak Keep. (vote change) I'm persuaded by the international (as opposed to merely local) media coverage. Johntex 21:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, although some information on how he was in a position to steal that money would be nice. --nixie 01:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not really much on Google. JamesBurns 10:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ejaz Rahim

268 hits on google. Does this pass "the test" and if so, why? [4] GRider\^talk 17:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nothing here showing notability. Johntex 21:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete; article doesn't establish importance. —Korath (Talk) 06:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability for me, possible family vanity. Megan1967 06:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Death phoenix 08:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Felix Santschi

Minor substub with no activity. With 15 google hits [5], is this a figure worthy of note? GRider\^talk 17:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nothing showing notability. Johntex 22:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Comment) expanded to mention one of his experiments. Kappa 22:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK Kappa, I'm changing to Keep thanks to the improved explanation of notability. Johntex 01:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable entomologist. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand, notable. Megan1967 06:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Well done kappa. Capitalistroadster 15:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable entomologist in the study of ants. That is as trendy a field as you can do in entomology. If we delete this we have to delete every entomologist. --LexCorp 23:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep -- Steev 08:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The article defaults to "keep." Joyous 16:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

George Cardenas

This individual receives 301 hits on google. [6] Does being an alderman make one "notable enough" for Wikipedia? Is there an existing precedent? GRider\^talk 19:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Chicago is a big place and not everyone in it is notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Enh, neutral. We kept an alderman recently, mostly on the grounds that all Chicago aldermen are notable despite being local politicians if I recall correctly. I can't find that article now; it's none of the ones listed in Chicago aldermen or Category:Chicago Alderman. Though, of those, only Eugene Schulter and Thomas Tunney have any more content than George Cardenas does, and a few have even less. Maybe merge them all. —Korath (Talk) 06:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Chicago has an awful lot of aldermen, but I think we should say that members of aldermanic boards, city councils, etc, of any large city are inherently notable. Otherwise, we could have an awful lot of unnecessary VfD fights. It's hard to imagine a Chicago alderman (past or present) whom you coudn't write about encyclopedically. The fact that this may currently fall short is an argument for expansion, not deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Inherently notable.--Centauri 01:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel, but shouldn't we merge them into lists then? Radiant! 08:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think the article Korath is referring to is Bernie Hansen (an article that GRider, incidentally, referred to as "noteworthy and encyclopedic"). Word is that he was a particularly notable alderman, and held some higher positions too. This article, however, says nothing, and while Chicago Aldermen are important to Chicago, they remain local politicians who do no thave the notability of mayor. Hansen, it seems, was an exception, and several people who voted to keep that article admitted they did so not because he was an alderman. Delete this one. -R. fiend 09:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ! I just looked at the Chicago aldermen page and we have a list of 50 people who are all on their way to having substubs reading "X is a Chicago alderman". I think turning them all into redirects is a no-brainer here, as they currently give no information that isn't included by having their names on the list. The problem with that is deciding what to do after they are no longer aldermen. Anyway, I'll probably go ahead and do that after this VfD is over, unless its decided that they should be deleted. -R. fiend 17:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Vagrant 20:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 06:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- It may grow into something more fruitful. Longhair 18:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Chicago aldermen. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians. Android79 00:52, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The article defaults to "keep." Joyous 16:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Geeta Zutshi

This article claims that Geeta Zutshi is a famed athlete, yet no information can be found to support such a claim. A minor 24 hits turn up on google. [7] Should this article be deleted? GRider\^talk 19:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, international and olympic athlete, national record holder. Kappa 22:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability for me, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Achieved success in Asian competitions, Qualifies for notability just.Capitalistroadster 15:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Grumble Kappa 17:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Indian and Asian record-setter. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. JamesBurns 10:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 16:14, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Guo Bingwen

19 hits on google for Guo Bingwen. [8] Does being the founder of an educational institution make one worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 19:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I would be tempted to vote"merge and redirect" if there were only one relevant destination for the merge. -Sean Curtin 02:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - under 20 Google hits, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable from the article. Also note 1510 hits in Chinese, which I don't speak, so no idea how many are relevant. —Korath (Talk) 06:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Judging from what the article actually says ("He is accepted as the Father of the Chinese Modern University") he is not the founder merely of "an educational institution" (which in itself would be enough, if the institution is important) but of an educational system. To be the founder of the modern system of education in the world's most populated country seems somewhat notable... The Chinese Wikipedia has a long article on him. / u p p l a n d 08:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No vote yet, but leaning toward keep. That Chinese article is only 3 weeks old, so I'm not sure they've solidly accepted it yet. Can someone who reads Chinese please have a look at that, see if it more clearly establishes notability, maybe add a request to WP:TIE if it's worth translating? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Had a look at Chinese version, he is at least as important as the many cartoon characters on Wikipedia. Have a look at Fukuzawa Yukichi for a similar personality in Japanese history(in English). Certainly it could do with translation or expansion. Munster 01:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. He got over a thousand Google hits!!! in Chinese. Most of the articles are related to the educator. -wshun 08:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep is surely my view. I'd like to give the information I know. Guo Bingwen (or Ping-Wen Kuo) was the founder of Nanjing Highier Normal Institute and National Southeast University which was the Chinese cradle of modern science. The Chinese modern higher education start by foreign church, e.g., The Peking University (北京彙文書院, not today's Beijing University (北京大學) but the Yenching University (燕京大學) and merged with BJU or PKU in 1952) and The Nanking University (南京彙文書院, not today's Nanjing University (南京大學) but the University of Nanking (金陵大學) and merged with NJU in 1952) established by American Christian church in 1887 and 1888. But they were not actually universities as their core objective was for religion at the time. Later in 1897 there was the first Chinese school with the Chinese name university(大學) --Peiyang University(北洋大學堂, renamed Tianjin University(天津大學) in 1951). It’s generally accepted as the first Chinese semi-modern? University(中國第一所近代大學). It was actually an engineering/technology institute. The first comprehensive Chinese university was National Peking University(also known as Metropolitan University(京師大學堂) in its earlier days and renamed Peking University in 1912) and the second national comprehensive Chinese university was National Southeast University(國立東南大學, renamed National Central University in 1928 and Nanjing University in 1949, also known as Nanjing Higher Normal Institute in its earlier days(南京高等師範學校)). Given the name university(大學), such Chinese universities as Peiyang University, Peking University, Shanxi University were not real modern university in their earlier days. [The modern Chinese university came into been around 1920s. In many features, National Southeastern University is the first modern Chinese university(the article Nanjing University may provide a little reference). For instance, John Leighton Stuart(司徒雷登), the first president of Yenching University, later also American Ambassador to China, in his book Fifty years in China(在華五十年), describes National Southeast University as "the first modern national university in China"(中國第一所現代國立高等大學). -note: by dictioner] Ping-Wen Kuo was the man of the time. When He was the president of Nanjing Higher Normal Institute, He established the Southeast University based on the Nanjing Higher Normal Institute. Many of the notable Chinese university presidents were faculties or graduates of the university around the year 1920. He even enjoyed international fame. He was elected for three times as the vice Chairman of the World Education Congress/International Education Board?(世界教育會) and the Chairman of Asian division since 1923. Wang Jingwei, a Chinese political leader, wanted to replace Ping-Wen Kuo to become the president of National Southeast University in 1924 and there were conflict between them, and with other reasons together, R.O.C. government at Nanjing devalued him. The CCP government also dislikes him for many reasons. As one reason raise here, Ping-Wen Kuo advocated the scholars/professors should be independent and should not involved in politic actives or politic parties. But CCP insists the party and government controlling education/universes till now. Wikinu 10:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't belong in the English section of Wikipedia. JamesBurns 05:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 16:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Helen Gandy

223 hits on google. [9] Does being the secretary of a former president make one notable enough for inclusion or should this be merged elsewhere? GRider\^talk 19:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say, "no" in answer to your question but the story about keeping and destroying the files makes me vote Keep on the article. Johntex 02:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Being the secretary of an important person doesn't necessarily make a person notable, but the episode with the papers merits inclusion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to J. Edgar Hoover, which already mentions the destruction of the files in less detail. —Korath (Talk) 06:53, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to J. Edgar Hoover. -- SGBailey 23:09, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
I didn't know J. Edgar Hoover was ever President. No matter. I'm going to vote keep on this one. She's no Rose Mary Woods, but I think this article is actually longer. A redirect, it seems to me, would violate whatever that principle is that says you shouldn't make a redirect if it will make the person go "huh?" (sorry it's nearly 5 am; I'm not thinking straight). This one would. -R. fiend 09:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. ComCat 02:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I vote keep, too. I found this via the Hoover page, and it seems like she has her own story going on. Maybe others can flesh it out. (Besides, if it's removed from something as open as Wikipedia, you know it's going to be cited as "proof" of "The Conspiracy" to supress whatever yadda yadda someone feels needs proving! :-) ) Bits are cheap, and the light of Truth can't hurt by shining on little stories, as well as big ones. Time will tell whether they're interesting or boring, but only if we let Time have an honest look. PatrickSalsbury 09:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, looks notable enough. JamesBurns 05:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Death phoenix 08:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Herbert McLean Evans

The article substub reads as follows: "Herbert McLean Evans (1882 - 1971) was a U.S. anatomist and embryologist." End of article. 535 hits on google. [10] Again, is this worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? What are the deciding factors? GRider\^talk 19:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and expand. I get 1000 hits on Google with "Herbert McLean Evans". Published notable professor. He was the first person to discover that Human Growth Hormone is produced from the pituitary gland, and he co-discovered Vitamin E with Katharine Scott Bishop. Megan1967 06:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Apart from the achievements identified by Megan1967, he also identified the number of chromosomes for humans and developed the Evans blue dye whi has been the main way to identify blood volume for over 80 years. See this brief bio for confirmation. [11] I hope to do this myself when I have a bit more time. Capitalistroadster 09:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. --Spinboy 06:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Expanded since nomination. Megan1967 08:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks good now. Almost worthy of non-stub status, but not quite. Bratsche 04:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep .As per the above bullet point --LexCorp 23:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 16:19, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hilary Hook

This article claims that Hilary Hook "became famous with the British public after a BBC 40 Minutes documentary portrayed him as having led a full life of adventure in the colonies", but I cannot verify any indication of fame. Only musters up a meager 38 hits on google. [12] Can someone from the UK vouch or verify this claim to fame? GRider\^talk 20:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep this one. "Hilary Hook" -wikipedia yields 260 hits -- I believe -dictionary -encyclopedia reduces the number of hits because a lot of them are for websites selling books, which may include dictionaries and encyclopedias. Various web pages repeat the bit about the BBC documentary, which, I know, is less than rock-solid support. In addition, I don't see any evidence of self-promo here. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. The documentary and book shows up in reviews, so it's not a hoax. Megan1967 06:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand, the key being his book. Otherwise this would just say he's famous for being famous (sort of like Charo?)) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I'm from the UK and he's not famous with me! Until I read this piece I had never heard of him. It seems the claims of fame within the UK seems to be over egging the pudding - and so probably the person. Brookie 08:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, appears notable with the book and documentary. JamesBurns 05:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article has been marked "pending deletion" because of a block compress error. Joyous 16:23, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Sager Weinstein

369 hits on google. [13] What is the acceptable threshold for includability in this instance? GRider\^talk 17:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Keep working on that screenplay, Jake. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability for me, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. As the subject of this article, it would be inappropriate for me to vote on this VFD, but I'd encourage people to take a look at the previous VFD. Note that, following the previous VFD discussion, my original self-created page was deleted (as I had proposed.) The page in its current form was created by a Wikipedia user I have never met using publically available information. For what it's worth, my own assessment is that I do meet two of criteria for inclusion but needless to say I have an obvious bias.--Jacobw 13:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. How many episodes of Dennis Miller Live did he write? Was he a significant contributor? The show itself is notable, with an eight-year run and several Emmys (I haven't watched it, though). Is he a Joss Whedon, or anything close? Not sure if aspiring to write a screenplay is encyclopedic—my understanding is that we shy away from such forward-looking statements. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The subject of the article clarified his involvement in the show; I've added that information to the article. (Details are on my talk page, he was a staff writer for three or so years). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If aspiring to write a screenplay is encyclopedic then we'd have to list half the West Los Angeles phonebook in here.
Delete. Sorry guy, but until that screenplay gets produced, it's not a difficult decision here. --Calton 15:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Associated with two famous productions. Johntex 21:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete lots of people are associated with a famous production, because famous productions are big. But he didn't do any serious writing or creativity yet. Radiant! 08:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless it can be established that he was a major contributor to both projects. I think Radiant has it right. Writers, though perhaps the most important element of such things, are still behind the scenes figures who don't have the visibility, and hence fame and notability, as those who appear in front of the cameras. -R. fiend 09:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete Yuckfoo 03:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hasn't done anything notable yet. JamesBurns 05:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Article defaults to "keep." Joyous 16:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jan Stursa

The article reads "Jan Stursa (1880 - 1925) was a Czechoslovakian sculptor." End of article. With 862 google hits [14] is this figure "notable enough"? Where does the bar of notability lie for foreign sculptors and artists? GRider\^talk 20:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. He's got an entry in the Grove Art database, so if he's notable enough for them, he's notable enough for us. Gamaliel 20:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability. Megan1967 06:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The article isn't much, but he is clearly a significant artist. The website of the City Gallery of Prague mentions him as one of "the founding personalities of Czech sculpture".[15] The Czech National Gallery, in a very brief text on 19th century art, speaks of "the turn-of-the-century generation led by Jan Štursa".[16] And what does his "foreignness" have to do with anything? Would or should the bar of notability be lower if he was born in Liverpool? / u p p l a n d 07:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The Columbia Encyclopedia has an article on this guy although it is a stub at best. [17] I hope we could do better. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing much in this stubby article. JamesBurns 05:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Janet Morassutti

Vanity? The wife of a member of a small indie rock band. 30 hits on google. [18] GRider\^talk 20:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable on her own, and the band itself barely seems to be. — Beginning 02:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 06:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 07:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not vanity, as I created this article. Rheostatics are in no sense "barely notable" -- they're one of the most notable Canadian rock bands in existence. (And if you don't buy that, consider that they placed two albums within the top five in Chart magazine's "Best Canadian Albums of All Time" reader poll, behind only Joni Mitchell, Neil Young and Sloan, and ahead of bands like Rush and The Tragically Hip.) I was admittedly ambivalent about doing an article for her, because of her limited notability on her own, but felt that the fact that she has been credited as both a writer and a performer on the band's albums made it likely that someone would encounter her name and search to find out who she is. Merge and redirect to Dave Bidini. I'll even do that myself. But she is enough of a potential search topic that she needs to be noted somewhere, if only in a "who is this obscure person getting credited next to Neil Peart, Barenaked Ladies and Sarah Harmer?" kind of way (cf. Whale Music, The Story of Harmelodia.) Bearcat 23:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merged and redirected. Bearcat 00:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and do not merge. According to Google she is more notable than Dave Bidini. JamesBurns 06:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

James Harvey Logan

38 hits on google [19] but yet the claim lies that he was the "source" for the word loganberry. Does this in turn make this horticulturist worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 20:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say so. Keep. -Sean Curtin 02:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, just notable enough - developer of the loganberry and Superior Court Judge. Megan1967 06:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Developing an edible and cultivated fruit means that he is notable enough. Capitalistroadster 10:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A tiny stub that would probably serve better as a redirect to loganberry. -R. fiend 09:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. ComCat 02:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Jean-Pierre Schecroun

This art forger receives 15 hits on google. [20] What are the determining factors in deciding if this individual should be included on Wikipedia or not? How do they differ from the others? GRider\^talk 20:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, a non notable criminal - less than 24 Google hits. Megan1967 05:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, he is famous enough to be included in places like History of Art Forgery and Art Forgery - Master forgers - Skysmith 10:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There was a big controversy when this guy's forgeries were revealed as such. — Gwalla | Talk 23:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just not notable. JamesBurns 06:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep. successful art forgers are. Mikkalai 21:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Jim Sinclair

Does having a prominent "anti-cure perspective" on autism make one notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? 549 google hits. [21] GRider\^talk 22:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep Jim Sinclair is actively involved in Autism Network International http://www.ani.ac , the largest organization run by and for autistic people. Sinclair's essay "Don't Mourn for Us" has most likely reached more people than any other piece of anti-cure writing and has changed peoples' view of autism. The autism rights movement (though not the official name of the movement) is just starting to build momentum and I do believe Jim Sinclair is an important person in the movement, and is important enough for mentioning in Wikipedia. Q0 23:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I do think information about the impact and controversy generated in the autism community by "Don't Mourn for Us" can be expanded on. Q0 01:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, just passes notability for me, needs expansion. Megan1967 05:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Jinty Stewart

The article reads, in full: "Jinty Stewart (b. 2 January 1955) is a former field hockey international and played in goal for Scotland. Stewart was on the Scottish team from 1974 to 1991." Jinty Stewart receives 14 hits on google. [22] What is the metric for determining qualification of inclusion for international field hockey players of this nature? GRider\^talk 22:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Did he represent Britain at the Olympic Games? How many internationals did he play? That is the sort of information we need to make a decision. Capitalistroadster 10:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 1974 to 1991 is a long time. Kappa 17:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with Megan. Radiant! 09:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just not notable enough. JamesBurns 06:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Joe Lidster

This individual has written two Doctor Who audio plays and turns up 558 hits on google. [23] Does this meet the benchmark of includability for professional writers? GRider\^talk 22:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete if thats all he's done --nixie 01:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Radiant! 09:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 06:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete Yuckfoo 03:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if Star Trek writers can have articles I dont see why this writer can't. JamesBurns 06:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete. Only two radio plays is hardly of notability. The article had plenty of time to be improved. Mikkalai 21:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Joey Hawthorne

The article reads, in full: "Joey Hawthorne was a poker player who wrote the lowball section in Doyle Brunson's Super/System. Joey died of a drug overdose while in his forties and his career never took off." and receives 380 matches on google, many of which are relevant. [24] Are deceased poker players who once contributed to a how-to book on playing poker notable in this instance? If so, why? GRider\^talk 22:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nonnotable poker player. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 21:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Katamori Matsudaira

This figure returns 70 hits on google. [25] Are all Japanese military commanders notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? What are the key ingredients that make up this particular BEEFSTEW? GRider\^talk 22:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - less than 70 Google hits. Megan1967 05:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 15,600 Google hits in Japanese, 173 more in English for the proper name ordering, and a significant article on ja:, which is beyond my ability to translate. —Korath (Talk) 07:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I was about to write the same thing as Korath but got into an edit conflict. / u p p l a n d 08:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He was the last leader of the shinsengumi. "Shinsengumi" gets 85,500 hits [26] even in English. Is the purpose of some of these nominations to discredit the google test? Kappa 09:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important figure in the Meiji Restoration. — Gwalla | Talk 23:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important figure. JuntungWu 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Our collective ignorance of historical japanese figure doesn't imply lack of enciclopedic value. --LexCorp 23:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Katashi Ishizuka

Is this Japanese voice actor "notable enough" within their field for inclusion on Wikipedia or is this "vanity"? Returns 192 hits on google [27] but perhaps there are more if performing some sort of a Japanese search? In contrast, Makio Inoue returns nearly 3000 hits. GRider\^talk 23:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete article does not establish notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep He has had some significant roles in anime and video games.Besides,this isn't even close to "vanity;" and I don't endorse vanity myself.Not to mention that there's at least one seiyu(mentioned in at least one article) which lacks an individual English article,but IMHO is less deserving of an one than the seiyu that already have existing articles...Ranma9617 06:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. 4340 hits (562 displayed) in Japanese; 105 additional English hits with proper name ordering. Vanity seems Pretty Unlikely, and even if it were, the creator has almost 2000 contributions, so I'd be inclined to be a bit lenient. :) No opinion on notability within his genre; I don't follow anime. —Korath (Talk) 07:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete anime fancruft. Grue 17:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. An actor with several high profile roles. — Gwalla | Talk 23:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Xezbeth 06:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable.--Centauri 12:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, anime fancruft. JamesBurns 06:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Katherine Bowes-Lyon

Katherine Bowes-Lyon was niece to Queen Elizabeth and was unfortunately born with mental retardation. Is this sufficient to establish enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia? A google search for this distant royal relative returns 43 hits. [28] GRider\^talk 23:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and expand. Megan1967 05:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. What the nominator fails to mention is that this woman was wrongly listed as deceased for 26 years, having been reported as such to Burke's Peerage by the Royal Family. This is widely supposed to have been an attempt to cover up the (apparently somewhat embarrassing) existence of a royal with a disability. That's all in the article, perhaps not quite as explicit as it might be, but there all the same, and also in the link provided. The nominator might want to reconsider this listing and concentrate instead on one of the many, many, many other vfds he/she currently has listed because there's nothing deletable about this one. Mattley 00:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Refers to the facts stated in Mattley's comments, except for the last paragraph about GRider which I disagree with. JuntungWu 02:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Jonathunder 06:29, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

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

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

Kayoko Fujii

Another voice actor. Returns 157 hits on google. [29] The article reads, in full: "Kayoko Fujii (藤井佳代子 Fujii Kayoko, born April 21, 1961) is a seiyu." The Japanese counter article is equally as terse. What is the appropriate benchmark to determine includability for Seiyūs on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 23:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete, barring more information. Gets 3,350 hits (432 displayed) on a Japanese-language Google search; also note that an English-language search gives 809 for the proper name ordering (of which only 35 are displayed). My Japanese has been gathering rust for the past ten years, though, and the English hits and Babelfish translations (cringe) indicate only bit parts. —Korath (Talk) 05:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability for me, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep There does appear to be decent information here, and there are weaker seiyu out there,none of which have a Wikipedia article...Ranma9617 06:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete anime fancruft. Even I get more Google hits. Grue 17:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Elihu Sternwallow gets more Google hits (and rightfully so). Denni ☯ 02:25, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Deletioncruft.--Centauri 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why? Grue 18:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - It is not vanity, nonsense or original research, therefore it is not a valid subject for deletion, and nominating it on VFD represents an instance of deletioncruft.--Centauri 13:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Xezbeth 15:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Why? Grue 18:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A series of minor roles, especially one in Akira. Kappa 23:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, anime fancruft. JamesBurns 06:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. insufficient notability. Mikkalai 22:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Kim Jun-Yop

The sub-stub reads: "Kim Jun-Yop, historian, educator, social activist. Attended Nanjing University." End of article. 29 google hits. [30] GRider\^talk 23:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. People of his caliber are probably in the tens of thousands. Oleg Alexandrov 00:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Former president of Korea University in South Korea, major academic in North Korea relations. Declined appointment as prime minister of South Korea in 1990 under Roh Tae Woo. Needs cleanup, expansion. JuntungWu 02:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but expand some more. Radiant! 09:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep per JuntungWu Kappa 22:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, average academic, nothing outstanding. JamesBurns 06:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Article establishes notability. Mikkalai 22:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Left_Overtures

Delete Advertisement. --BenWilson 17:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, store advertisement. Megan1967 05:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad. —Korath (Talk) 08:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Goddamnit You people are being silly. This place has at least 5000 Mariah Carey CDs. Who the hell would ever have that much Mariah Carey lying around to sell to a record store? Someone with a torrid past, that's who.

Plus, this place has every movie on Comedy Central for sale, so there is a good chance the executives from that channel come to this store when they want to buy new movies to put on the air. It's a very crazy place and worth having in a damn internet encylcopedia. Get off your high horse, you racists. --Boycottthecaf 03:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete this advertisement, there's nothing interesting there. (I've censored the above post for swearwords). Radiant! 09:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing notable here. Oh, and it's generally best not to edit other people's comments in anything but the most extreme circumstances. Besides, Boycotthecaf's calling us racists wasn't swearing, but was pretty amusing. -R. fiend 09:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Racists? I didn't even evaluate for gender. :-) Or race, for that matter.

Hey Fuckers the entry has been updated so it is now more informative then ever. Keep it. --Boycottthecaf 01:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure if that's a vote. But, you already have at least once voted already.--BenWilson 14:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Also, still not all that informative. Google reveals only 33 hits off the terms "Left overtures," but most of those seem to be for a band "No Left Overtures." For all the alleged fame noted in the revised article, there's no web presence to substantiate. --BenWilson 14:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Who cares if it's not on the interent; the internet is full of nerds. Let's not take their word on it. The internet isn't the final word if something is important. Only cool people go to Leftovertures, anyway. Maybe they all don't want to write about the store on their dumbass livejournals. --Boycottthecaf 19:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete I am glad so many people agree to delete this Jew entry and agree with Nazism. Hail the white race! --Hilter 2:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. -R. fiend 01:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the record, User "Hitler" vote was added during Boycottthecaf's edit, so he's just screwing around with the process. At least he voted to keep before he voted to delete. ;-) --BenWilson 14:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - author is a jerk, and it doesn't look that notable. Zetawoof 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Zetawoof username is stupid and he likes to touch little boys. we don't need that catholic priest crap around here. --Boycottthecaf 05:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Next time you edit this comment, Boycottthecaf, I'm taking this to Arbitration. Zetawoof 06:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Not sure if you can delete a user without being charged for murder. Don't think I've not considered it a time or two myself. :-)--BenWilson 14:06, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Don't make me come down there. I'll smite you, so help me myself - GOD 01:50, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC) [fake vote by Boycottthecaf. jni 15:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)] This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Luther Masingill

This AM radio personality turns up 60 hits on google. [31] What is the criteria for establishing if this host meets the bar of includability? GRider\^talk 23:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nonnotable radio personality. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - less than 60 Google hits. Megan1967 05:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In the 21st century, "AM radio personality" = "non-notable" Denni ☯ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

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

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

Madeline Haithcock

Another aldernman, returning 346 hits on google. [32] The article reads, in full: "Madeline Haithcock is a Chicago Alderman for Chicago's 2nd Ward." What makes this person worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 23:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 05:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning towards merge with the rest of Category:Chicago Alderman into Chicago aldermen. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George Cardenas. —Korath (Talk) 08:07, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as argued in similar cases. Chicago aldermen inherently notable, certainly potential for an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Please forgive my ignorance on Chicago alderman, but what makes all of them so significantly notable, or more notable than a Chicago public high school, that they each need their own individual article? GRider\^talk 21:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a sub-sub-...-sub-stub. --Neigel von Teighen 21:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge all these aldermen into a list. I entirely fail to see their notability, but there seems to be a lot of them so a list would be appropriate. Radiant! 09:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Deletioncruft.--Centauri 12:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Chicago aldermen. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians. Android79 00:52, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sub-sub-stub. JamesBurns 06:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Chicago aldermen.Mikkalai 22:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marc Helwani

Are millionaires today a dime a dozen, or is this person noteworthy? I could not verifiably corroborate any of the claims within this article. Is this a case of vanity, a hoax, or otherwise? A google search for this person results in a single match. [33] One hit. GRider\^talk 00:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article almost reads like a friend made it as a joke or something. If he were the youngest millionaire, I might think about it. But third? And totally unverifiable? Sorry, no. – Beginning 02:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - 2 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, "Who Cares!?!?" —Korath (Talk) 08:03, Feb 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 no consensus. Article defaults to "keep." Joyous 22:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Marian Petre Milut

Vanity. Ran for public office in Romania and won 0.4% of the vote. GRider\^talk 00:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He was the presidential candidate of Acţiunea Populară, a party founded by modern Romania's one right-wing president, Emil Constantinescu. The very fact of his almost complete lack of electoral success as the candidate of this party presumably should make an interesting story. This is sort of like keeping someone because they were the Communist Party USA presidential candidate, which we certainly do. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. Delete. In many countries it is easy to start a political party with little or no support, agenda or competence (ref: last Dutch elections had half a dozen new splinter factions). These are not of themselves notable. Radiant! 09:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
In Romania, order to be accepted on the ballot, presidency candidates have to provide 200,000 signatures of support. Also, in order to register a party, you have to have offices in over half of the 40 Romanian counties. (these rules were made after in the early 90s, the ballot used to be a small booklet :-) Bogdan | Talk 09:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He got 43 000 votes. In California, Georgina Russell got only 2 000 (out of 8 million) votes and yet we have an article about her. Bogdan | Talk 09:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing her to my attention. I had not made it over to the G's quite yet. GRider\^talk 17:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that he got 0.4% of the vote does not make it 'vanity'. IulianU 15:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - passes the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test - David Gerard 15:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Hard to see how this qualifies as "vanity", unless we have Romanian Presidential candidates or their supporters attempting to subvert Wikipedia. Lacrimosus 22:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not particularly notable. JamesBurns 06:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 23:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mario Coutinho

The article reads: "Mario Coutinho was born in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais. Cardiologist, Intensivist, medical researcher and professor of Medicine at the Federal University of Santa Catarina." End of article. 473 google hits on google. [34] What sort of criteria must a professor meet in order to be included on Wikipedia? (No vote.) GRider\^talk 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Borderline notable for me. Megan1967 05:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fails the professor test (i.e. not more notable than youra verage professor). Radiant! 09:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - passes the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test - David Gerard 15:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable enough. JamesBurns 06:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mark Naimark

This Ukranian mathematician only returns 37 hits on google. [35] Is there something in particular that makes him distinguishable from other PhD's and worthy of note on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 00:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, cleanup and expand. Borderline notable for me. Megan1967 05:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. If there is a MacTutor biography of him, I trust the Scots that he is an important mathematician. / u p p l a n d 07:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can substantiate. The article does not establish notability beyond the average professor, thus fails the professor test. Radiant! 09:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep he is an important and distinguished mathematician. See [36] ~10.000 hits. Look at Gelfand-Naimark-Segal_construction,Gel'fand-Naimark_theorem. MathMartin 21:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whoa. That's a definite keep. DS 22:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Deletioncruft.--Centauri 12:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable figure. JamesBurns 06:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Mikkalai 22:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 23:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nick Hamilton

Does being a pro-wrestling referee make one worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Nick Hamilton returns 347 hits on google. [37] GRider\^talk 01:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)~

Delete. He's a ref, not one of the entertainers. (Granted, I don't watch the stuff, but it doesn't seem to me that he actually is part of the show.) – Beginning 02:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 05:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A referee is just as much part of the match as the wrestlers themselfs, would you delete football referees just because they dont score goals? plus he is not just a referee, he is the senior offical of SmackDown! and has worked with the top promotions in North America. deleting this would be the same as deleting Earl Hebner, and thats just not right. Paulley 12:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with above user. Grue 17:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Way above the bar of notability for me. Xezbeth 18:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Remember that in pro wrestling, "referees" are performers too. — Gwalla | Talk 23:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Paulley and Gwalla. —RaD Man (talk) 02:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, widely seen professional entertainer. Kappa 08:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 15:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, wrestling cruft. JamesBurns 06:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 5 delete votes and 4 keep votes (one unexplained). While two of them are relatively new users, their comments are cogent and fact-based. I interpret them as good-faith contributions. The premise of some of the "delete" votes was the copyvio allegation. In a comment below, a contributor to the article says that this is not a copyright violation but that comemnt is not definitively sourced on the article's page. In researching it, I note that the article says it was created in 2004 and that the official rules of the game are not yet finalized. That makes key elements of it unverifiable.

I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and delete it. However, I am going to put a copy of the current version in rbphd2009's userspace so that he/she can move it back into the main articlespace if/when it becomes a more stable sport. I am also unlinking it from other articles for now. Rossami (talk) 08:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Viperball

"Viperball" is according to the article an offshoot of Toccer which is already somewhat obscure, from what I can tell. I searched on google and didn't come up with much about Viperball that was related to the sport except for a few pages by the creator. I don't think the sport quite exists yet; nobody would be likely to look it up on Wikipedia, but the page creator did place a link on Invented_sport, as well as Toccer. Could anyone confirm that Toccer is widely regarded as a sport either? I don't live in that area of the country. In any case, I don't think that Viperball is played widely enough(if it all) to need an article. RadioYeti 01:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete less than 150 Google hits, not much at all for a sport. For comparison's sake: Football gets 94 Million, baseball gets 54 million, lacrosse gets 7 million, dodgeball gets 1.5 million, stickball gets 64,000. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's a copyvio. Perhaps a paragraph about viperball could be included in Toccer. --nixie 02:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, copyright violation. Megan1967 04:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge a non-copyright-violating paragraph (if that) in toccer. --Quoxplor 07:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep after writing a non-copyvio version at Viperball/temp. --Ryan! | Talk 07:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's not a copyright violation. The Toccer Players Association authorized the posting of the rules of the sport, etc. as that group governs Viperball. That said, whether it's "notable" or "not notable" is debatable. Toccer is played here in Wyoming, as well as on the East Coast. So whether it's "notable or not," it's got more reach and notably than say duck-pin bowling in Maryland. Or I guess we could wait 10 years and post it here when the sport has the notoriety of netball in the US, though I would argue it already does in less time.| rbphd2009 19:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 15:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment I realize that Toccer is somewhat widespread, but this is about "Viperball". According to the official Toccer website, found by searching on google, the rules haven't even been finalized yet. http://toccer.com/blog/index.php?cat=4. So perhaps it should be merged with Toccer? RadioYeti 23:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Glasgow. sjorford →•← 20:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glasweigan

This appears to be a mis-spelling of Glaswegian (which currently re-directs to Glasgow)

- Guettarda 00:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should have been bold and done likewise. We have redirects under likely mis-spellings, and one definition of "likely" is "that someone actually did and started a duplicate article because of". Redirect to Glasgow. Uncle G 02:25, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
- Since the creator of the page spells "Glaswegian" this way on his user page I was a little hesitant to make the change in case there was some usage of this spelling that I was unaware of. Guettarda 13:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TheLadders

Advertising. Rick K 00:37, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertising --nixie 02:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, website advertisement. Megan1967 04:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, standard headhunter ad. Wyss 19:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rabbit Information Service

I'm not sure this article belongs. It was originally an advertisement/policy position for a website. I've edited it to a better standard, but it's still on the edge of encyclopedic. I'd like to throw it open to community opinion. Alba 01:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete --nixie 02:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yay rabbits. CDC (talk) 02:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. utcursch 12:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I like bunnies, but WP's not a web guide. Wyss 19:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blue Inc

Advert. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Alba 01:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete --nixie 02:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. CDC (talk) 02:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. Carrp | Talk 05:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. utcursch 12:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what's more, their "store" or whatever seems to be no more than a collection of links to major brand clothing sites. Wyss 19:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted -- Longhair 18:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Thomas

I don't think he's notable; the article doesn't make any claim of notability. Name obviously hard to google test, but seems similar to any other lobbyist. Notable politicians, even behind-the-scenes types are notable (cf. Ken Mehlman); this guy isn't. Meelar (talk) 02:08, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) Delete Un-notable --BenWilson 17:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, blurb. Wyss 18:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even the "biography" linked from the article contains pretty much no information on the guy, and seems to talk more about issues he supports and shows he's been a guest on than his history, reasons he's notable, etc. – Beginning 02:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. You're probably right. I just killed the link to Chuck Thomas from Marijuana Policy Project, since this seems unlikely to become more than a substub. 205.217.105.2 15:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 06:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whenever you read an article and your reaction is "so what?", you know it's time to delete. Gamaliel 07:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ComCat 02:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meshari

This page in Albanian has been listed in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since 28 January. I am listing it here according to the policy laid out in that page. JoaoRicardo 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. jni 06:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, something about it just doesn't seem helpful to me... Wyss 18:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abdullahi Ahmed Addou

This page in Somali has been listed in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since 30 January. I am listing it here according to the policy laid out in that page. JoaoRicardo 02:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable - less than 60 Google hits, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but a glance at the text makes me think it might be a poem. Anyway, delete since unintelligible to the two or three of us that don't understand Somali. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. jni 06:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. utcursch 12:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, basically 'cause I don't understand a word of it and last time I checked, this WP was an English sort of thing. Wyss 18:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think this should be translated; it should just be rewritten. There is a brief overview and photo of Addou at rulers.org [38]. --Sesel 15:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous 03:17, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Iran flag

This page in Persian has been listed in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since 30 January. I am listing it here according to the policy laid out in that page. JoaoRicardo 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Flag of Iran, of course. CDC (talk) 02:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and add redirect to Flag of Iran. Megan1967 04:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. utcursch 12:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, yes she said, yes. Wyss 18:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Flag of Iran -- Longhair 18:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
redirect as above Yuckfoo 03:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 15:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wooism

381 Google hits but seems to be some sort of vanity joke. Philthecow 02:31, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable neologism, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete (or redirect to l33t) Radiant! 12:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. utcursch 12:16, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity neologism, self-promotion. Wyss 18:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity neologism. Johntex 19:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Lightweight Matrix Engine

This is a specific technical component of a product that hasn't yet merited its own article either. The article doesn't show how it's notable in itself. CDC (talk) 02:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, expand. Megan1967 06:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. Wyss 18:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. —Korath (Talk) 07:58, Feb 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. Joyous 23:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

List of first names

This article was nominated for deletion on 09:13, 2004-09-05 by User:Violetriga. It was removed from VFD by User:SimonP without recording a result. For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of first names.

Pointless, never can be complete, unencylopedic. Transwiki if you must. Delete. Neutrality^talk 03:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, a never ending trivial list. Megan1967 06:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, see List of dog names from yesterday. Radiant! 08:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at the previous VfD of this page, I can't find a convincing argument for keeping it. Xezbeth 08:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - could be useful to pages like Behind the Name but not necessarily here - Skysmith 09:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or add Foot, Footfoot, Footfootfoot, and Footfootfootfoot to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that's one solution if you have quadruplets :) Radiant! 10:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
This list fulfils none of the purposes of lists. It provides no information, is useless for navigation, and is a sheer horror when one considers what would happen if it were to be used for development. Mikkalai's suggestion to use and improve the far better Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names instead seems to have fallen upon deaf ears. Delete to make the point more forcefully. Uncle G 18:01, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Delete and to quote from Citizen Kane, "Impossible, impossible, impossible..." Wyss 18:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete — RJH 19:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A list of names limited to those that actually have articles would be good, though. --Calton 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Categories are the tailor-made tools for that, not lists. See Category:People by surname, for example. Uncle G 02:33, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Uncle G. --Angr 00:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. When would you ever need to use this? -- Robert Pendray 09:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A useless and unending list. Carrp | Talk 16:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Albeit temporarily because Categories would be a better way of managing this. Querents seek lists of people with a specific forename to answer a variety of questions: inter alia Who shares my name? With whom do I associate my child if I name her/him this? What was the correct surname of Michael Scarsomething? --Theo (Talk) 19:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:22, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Deodoroc

This page seems to be only an advertisement for a commercial product. The claims do not seem scientific or verifiable and no other page links to this page. I assume that makes it a candidate for deletion, but I may be wrong since this is the first page I have nominated for deletion. - FrankH 03:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I had a typo in the link back to Deodoroc - I was wondering why no votes were appearing. Sorry about that. -- FrankH 21:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless rewritten to demonstrate notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:02, Feb 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 KEEP

Eden, Kansas

There are two things called Eden Kansas, the Eden Kansas swingers clud and the Garden of Eden resort in Lucas, Kansas. This article isn't clear, does not establish notability and if it is about the resort should be moved to the right name. --nixie 03:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete~~, the title implies a town name but there seems to be no such town in Kansas. Wyss 18:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm going to have to read up on the deletion policy and corrective actions, but Eden is a place name in Atchison County. They used to have a post office (and a blacksmith!), but the town was passed up by the railroad. It is located where Labette Rd, 322nd Rd, and 326th Rd meet in Atchison County. You can see the area (with no place name shown) on maps.google.com halfway between Huron, Kansas and Atchison County State Park.Kslattery 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep assuming it's the same place as in [39]. --SPUI (talk) 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep it as re-written. The original VfD was understandable though, the place is tiny and the article wasn't clear, reading as though the name could have been a recent vanity thing or hoax etc. Wyss 13:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:22, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mediocracy

I'm not sure whether this band is notable or not. The article doesn't enlighten me. Delete unless the article establishes notability.-gadfium 03:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article does not establish notability, possible band vanity. Megan1967 07:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. No recordings ("some mp3s to come" it says hopefully). — Gwalla | Talk 07:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 18:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, garage band vanity. — Ливай | ☺ 00:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:23, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Repair Your Computer

Unsalvagable howto. Not worth transwiki-ing. Delete.-gadfium 03:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A cross between a how-to and original research. Szyslak 03:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Please don't read this to learn how to repair your computer. Actually, don't read this for any reason. Carrp | Talk 05:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete there could potentially be a good article for wikibooks on this topic. This is just much too basic, and the odd tone doesn't help. Would need a severe overhaul before transwikiing, so I vote to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We already have an article for Ad-aware - a product I do recommend. -- RWH 12:09, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encylopediac. Not worth transwiki. utcursch 12:22, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP not a DIY guide, for starters. Wyss 18:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete it fast. Oleg Alexandrov 00:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Fuzz

Dictionary definition - there is already a page for Fuzzy in wiktionary JeremyA 04:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet another off-the-top-of-the-head first draft at a dictionary definition. Delete. -- Hoary 04:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Delete. I can't imagine anything that could be added to this that would make it more than a dicdef. — Ливай | ☺ 04:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete the inept dicdef. Wyss 18:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete kindive alright for a laugh and how to hurt yourself with airosol air :-s --Tommi 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:27, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

HistoryOfBEEP

Whimsy/fiction about the origin of "beep" to mean some unspecified naughty word. -- Hoary 04:20, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense. Carrp | Talk 05:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even if it were true, it's noteable how? Either ... naw, just delete it. -- Dbroadwell 05:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
HistoryOfDELETE: Oh, how quickly things are deleted off the Wikipedia. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. jni 06:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if Beep was some type of naughty word they are not doing the article any favours by calling it Beep - thereby negating any chance of veritability, obviously article does not establish notability. Megan1967 07:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it's nothing but a silly vanity story. Radiant! 12:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
So reality has caught up with something that Larry Niven proposed in the 1970s. (See List of fictional curse words. Also see expletive deleted.) At most, noting the fact that reality has once again caught up with science fiction, and that once again we are starting to walk the euphemism treadmill, is a one-line addition to beep. Delete and make that one-line addition. Uncle G 12:16, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. utcursch 12:21, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Schoolyardcruft. ;) 23skidoo 15:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think that, with restructuring and modification, this article should be kept because it does contribute some informationUser:Tezeti
Good ol' Tezeti...you didn't have to!

Comments

I have edited this page to improve some content. This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 speedy delete (CSD G4 -- reposted content). howch e ng {chat} 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan_Greer

NN Already been deleted once

Anarchists, by nature, do not follow the rules, and this page having already been deleted once after full discussion has now been created again. Speedy Delete because such discourtesy does not deserve a second extended discussion. --StanZegel (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever - Not a completely NPOV decision, as I am the creator of the article and I know Evan personally. I am aware that the article has already been nominated for deletion. However, refer to my comment on the discussion page for this article. He's toured all over the United States and he passes the "google test" with 11,500 mentions. Daykart 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. His webpage lists appearances in coffee shops and bakeries. That's not touring. If more notability can be established, will gladly change my vote. Flyboy Will 17:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't rate a hit in the allmusic.com database. Jgritz 11:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evan Greer has performed at ABC No Rio, he has some clout in the anarchist folk scene. His collective Riot Folk is present on Wikipedia with no issue. (166.109.0.71)
Delete I was the one who proposed this page for deletion for three reasons. 1) It has already been deleted once. 2) This incarnation of the article is even less informative and relevent than the previous and merits deletion on its own. 3) Not sure if this matters but I put this up for deletion after talking with Evan who vehemntly does not want a page on him. --FluteyFlakes88 08:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evan Greer

Advertising or self promotion; lacks biographical data; not of general renown.--StanZegel 04:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Restoring as deletion candidate after User:Brockert unilaterally removed it from consideration.--StanZegel 04:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, artist promo, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as capitalist self-promotion. Wyss 18:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The tone of it is just self-promotion. Zzyzx11 23:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, If I wanted to know about this artist, the information on this page would be of some help. It isn't blantant self-promotion.
Delete, egotistical promotion vanity etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Carrp | Talk 16:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like vanity to me. Robin Johnson 13:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. This has been done. Joyous 03:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fuck Me

A rather uncommon exlimation (sic). Fuck me, is that really so? Actually this is a rather fascinating expression, in a sense, and somebody could write an intelligent paper on it. (For starters, see the opening paper in Zwicky et al., Studies out in left field.) Not the original poster of the article, however. Or indeed myself. And if there were an intelligent paper on it, this would be of some coitolinguistic interest but it would not be encyclopedic. -- Hoary 04:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Speedy -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Dictionary definitions are not speedy candidates, even definitons of vulgar expressions. Kappa 06:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nateji77 06:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly written dictionary definition. jni 06:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Fuck. I had a friend who used to say "fuck me dead" all the time until I kept answering "yes please" in response. Needless to say she stopped saying that expression from then on. Megan1967 07:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Fuck. It's really wiktionary material but the word is in wikipedia. Kappa 09:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Megan1967 and Kappa, I believe that "fuck you", "fuck off", "fuck (someone) over", "fuck me sideways" (jocular), "fuck-up" (noun) and more are idiomatic. Would you suggest redirects from each to "fuck"? ~~I suggest not, and I further suggest that any person who's not extraordinarily dimwitted and doesn't find an article for one of them (or for "fuck you") can go to "fuck".~~ -- Hoary 09:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC). PS aw fuck it, I think I called that one wrong. Read on. -- Hoary 04:29, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

"fuck you" is already a redirect and "fuck off" probably should be. Redirects for less likely expressions wouldn't be worth creating (or deleting, if created). Remember if someone doesn't find something at "fuck X", they might go to "fuck", or they might waste their time and ours creating a new article. Kappa 15:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hoary I suggested redirecting in order to prevent article recreation. I certainly agree with you that having an article on every "fuck" variate would be pushing the limit for Wikipedia (and it will no doubt be wasting voters time whenever they go up for VfD). Megan1967 01:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have a point about the prophylactic virtues of redirection. Yes, you've convinced me. -- Hoary 04:29, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Delete I don't think the author even got the definition right... whenever I've heard it, it seems to be an expression of surprise, sort of a vulgar substitute for "Hey, look at that!". There's a character named Beaver in Stephen King's novel Dreamcatcher who says it a lot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Fuck. heh heh heh I said f***. HyperZonk 16:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, inept dicdef of a trivial construction (and there are tonnes of 'em), ~~no RD please~~. Wyss 18:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect or we will very well be here once again in the near future. GRider\^talk 00:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True enough... RD. Wyss 13:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect; the redirect discussion above is quite convincing. Antandrus 04:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap, and fuck me if we don't get another article at this title in a week otherwise. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. ComCat 02:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Fuck -- Longhair 18:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Hodgson 2

Vanity. Rick K 05:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete 2. Why delete 2? Because it should deserve special deletion treatment. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Concur. Delete - Mailer Diablo
Delete. Self-admitted vanity autobiography. Note the first person text. jni 06:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because thy name is vanity. Wyss 18:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Why I concur too? Too much vanity. Too little notable substance. Zzyzx11 00:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the reasons above. Oleg Alexandrov 00:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - He might end up on a disambiguation page yet :)~ Longhair 04:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Organic time

Original research. See Wikipedia:No original research. ~~Was also a signed essay. Originally concluded: "For time travelling , we must know better our temporal mechanisms, and surely we will obtain an constructive answer to this problem"~~Kappa 07:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. JoaoRicardo 07:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. -- Curps 11:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original Research. utcursch 12:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research. HyperZonk 16:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research (written by someone who speaks English as a second language), drivel iced with copy-pastes from a reference text. Welcome to the information age. Wyss 18:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

ACEtone Studio

Promo for a nonnotable recording studio. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, studio advertisement. Megan1967 09:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for being advertising. HyperZonk 16:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the only thing here is a big, docking ad. Wyss 18:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Anonymous votes were severely discounted. Joyous 03:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Golden Words

Nonnotable weekly humor newspaper. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 08:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:31, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable stub. utcursch 12:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad for a local campus publication. Wyss 18:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable as Canada's only weekly humor publication. 69.159.189.52 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Anonymous user's third edit. Carrp | Talk 23:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Publication spawned the career of screenwriter Elan Mastai. Jtlaw 23:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: User's second edit. Carrp | Talk 23:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Still valid, just needs to be expanded. 69.197.44.6 23:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: Anonymous user's third edit. Carrp | Talk 23:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 05:40, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Shawn Badyk

There does appear to be someone named Shawn Badyk, but I don't know how accurate this article is, and in any event he doesn't appear to be notable in any way. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've speed deleted it as a personal attack. Vfd withdrawn. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Could be an attack page. jni 07:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Hoary 08:01, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 08:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, possible personal attack Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:33, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. utcursch 12:21, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 18:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POM campground

Neologism. Non-notable. Even the place it is referring to is non-notable. --Woohookitty 07:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Only marginally above vandalism. (and remember to delete the link from Pom - us Pom's don't like being associated with rubbish like this). -- RWH 12:14, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Delete. Inside joke neologism, and not entirely creditable at that. HyperZonk 16:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Thank you RHaworth. I deleted the link. --Woohookitty 18:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 18:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, nonsense. Megan1967 05:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

P/R/F/T

Some nonsensical, incoherent vanity signed by its author, who claims that he "could well be the new Messiah, such are the trolling miracles he perfoms." jni 07:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete almost a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:31, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as noted above. HyperZonk 16:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 18:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Todd Weinstock

Non-notable. --Woohookitty 07:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. utcursch 12:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Wyss 18:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is another article that makes me sigh and ask, "Who bloody cares?" Zzyzx11 00:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 05:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Osxnews

Non-notable software. JoaoRicardo 08:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. freshmeat says it's not vital nor popular. It's own homepage has a poll (under 50 responses) that indicates most people think it is missing vital features or just simply unstable. Maybe when it's out of alpha and has a user base, but not now. HyperZonk 17:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, product blurb. Wyss 18:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, whoever wrote it couldn't even spell Mac OS X right.
Delete. If there is no notable news about this newsreader software, then its Wikipedia article goes in the trash can. Zzyzx11 00:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Never too late to rewrite this article if the program actually gets popular. Oleg Alexandrov 00:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 6 clear "delete votes", 12 variations on "keep" votes (one trollish vote ignored) and 2 unclear votes. However, I note that 8 people (on both keep and delete sides) mentioned transwiki as an alternative or as the preferred answer. Noting that transwiki does not destroy history and therefore does not require the overwhelming concensus that deletion requires, I am going to be bold and put this in the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 09:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List_of_Japanese_given_names

Another list of names that can never be complete. See List of first names and List of dog names. Radiant! 08:22, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as per VfD vote on List of first names and List of dog names. Megan1967 09:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Does anyone know the Japanese word for footfootfoot? Radiant! 11:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - 「足々々」。 —Korath (Talk) 05:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - could be useful to pages like Behind the Name but not necessarily here - Skysmith 09:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Wasn't it established that lists are encyclopedic? If that is true, is it necessary to delete every incomplete list? -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If they fulfil the purpose of lists they are. And incomplete lists can be marked for expansion in several ways, and should be. So: Does this one fulfil the purpose of lists? Uncle G 17:09, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  - Let's see... Navigation? Not really, unless we get articles on the majority of the listed names. Development, not likely for the same reason. That leaves Information. IMHO such a list would be informative if it listed origin and meaning of the names - but in that case it would belong in Wikisource. Or if Japan had a very limited number of names (like Latin does), otherwise it could never be remotely complete. Radiant! 17:59, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    - There are articles on at least a few of the names. I don't see why there won't be articles on more of them. --ChrisRuvolo 00:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, will inevitably mislead by lack of context and completeness, and could become a hotbed of stealth vandalism. Wyss 18:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, according to Japanese name, there are limits to the names placed by the government in order to keep the number of Kanji within sane limits. --ChrisRuvolo 18:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Kanji names in Japan are governed by the government's rules on kanji use. There are currently (Oct 2004) 2,232 "name kanji" (the jinmeiyō kanji 人名用漢字) used in personal names, and the government plans to increase this list by 578 kanji in the near future. Only kanji which appear on the official list may be used in given names. This is to ensure that names can be written and read by those literate in Japanese.
  - All right. Mathematics time: Assume that names made from that set of characters may be up to two characters long. How many possible names is that for this page? How many possible names is it assuming that names may be up to three characters long? Assume that ChrisRuvolo can romanize one name in 20 seconds. How long will it take him to romanize the entire list of two character names? Uncle G 19:42, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
    - Assuming that we do not count names written in hiragana and katakana (which could be a combination of at least 70 different characters, and various lengths), and we only count 2810 kanji letters for the personal names...
    - For two characters long, that would be C(2810, 2). -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - 2810 squared, or 7,896,100 names. If you subtract the ones consisting of the same character twice, that leaves 7,893,290. Sounds practical, no? :) Radiant! 22:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, I never said it would be practical. :) Mathematics and completeness aside, I still find it to be a useful reference. --ChrisRuvolo 00:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This list is not and may not ever be complete, but I think that even an incomplete list is a useful reference. Josh 18:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. —Korath (Talk) 05:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) (superseded below)
Wiktionary? Or some place. Useful to have on line someplace, because it's very useful to know the Kanji for common names. I would say keep unless we can find it another home. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As a student of Japanese, this could be a very useful resource. It could also be a useful reference link from an article on Japanese names. Being able to look up the kanji of a name from its pronounciation, and vice versa, is very useful, and well within the bounds of Wikipedia, which has become a useful reference for the study of foreign languages through articles such as Japanese language. I suspect that this will become a top-notch list. --LostLeviathan 03:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia is not a kanji dictionary. This would belong in Wiktionary, if anywhere in the wikiverse. — Gwalla | Talk 04:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Exploding Boy 17:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki or keep, this list is very useful Kappa 08:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep or transwiki. This information does appear to be useful. —RaD Man (talk) 11:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think that's pretty interesting. Would it help if the article was called "List of common Japanese names" instead? Did you see the link to the other entries (List of common XXXX names)? We could add a blurb to each stating that the list is actually of "common names".... What would it be "Transwiki"'d to?? Doesn't "Transwiki" just mean "move to a place where no one can find it"? -- Serge Dupouy 11:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Only if "a place where no-one can find it" in turn means "one of Wikipedia's sibling projects that are mentioned prominently on the main page and in countless places throughout the encyclopaedia", which of course it does not. If you do happen across anyone who cannot find dictionary definitions of words, etymologies of words, or translations of words in the encyclopaedia, please point them towards the dictionary. Uncle G 01:35, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 03:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 12:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep or transwiki. Useful reference information. jni 13:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Potentially useful info, but not for Wikipedia. Carrp | Talk 16:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Bogdan | Talk 17:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Wiktionary has an appendix for given names. —Korath (Talk) 20:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not an encyclopaedic article. JamesBurns 06:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lemonghost

Not notable. Thue | talk 08:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 10:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. utcursch 12:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, teen self-promotion. Wyss 18:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Lemonghost members may "have grown in skill and talent greatly" but not enough to be notable. Zzyzx11 00:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above. -- Hadal 04:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, about the 2,000^th vfd'd non-notable teen webcomic. Bart133 (t) 04:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Article defaults to "keep." Joyous 01:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jak Housden

Stub. Notability not established. Is there any? Radiant! 09:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Aussie music scene only perhaps? Member of The Whitlams, who have an article, but I've never heard of him or them myself. Can any Aussies comment? Average Earthman 13:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) (corrected link Average Earthman 17:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC))
Delete unless something shows up. Wyss 18:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mino artist with a non notable single album release. Megan1967 00:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Whitlams certainly are a prominent band within Australia (and Tim Freedman is well-known in his own right). They have a good five albums to their credit, I don't know where single-album release came from. I'd vote keep, and see if there's someone on the noticeboard who can flesh it out. Lacrimosus 22:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No allmusic.com entry, and the entry on the Whitlams doesn't mention him at all. Gamaliel 22:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep! Sheesh, be careful when you're deleting stuff from other countries. The Whitlams are one of the most notable Australian bands from the late 1990s, with a whole bunch of stuff that charted. With this in mind, I don't think an article on their guitarist is unreasonable! Ambi 23:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Yes he's definately a notable Aussie -- Longhair 02:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable member of notable Aussie band. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:05, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing on allmmusic.com would suggest spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 15:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jane Margaret O'Brien

First female president of some college somewhere. How is that notable? Radiant! 09:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, and I wish her the best of luck with her goals. Gazpacho 10:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although she sounds wonderful to me. Wyss 18:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment over 500 Google hits which would make her borderline notable, ~~no vote as yet~~. Megan1967 00:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to St. Mary's College of Maryland, and add redirect. Megan1967 06:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to St. Mary's College of Maryland. Appears to be notable primarily within that context, and that article certainly isn't dangerously large. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Merge. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:07, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge Gamaliel 07:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. JamesBurns 06:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous with 5 clear "delete" votes and 3 clear "keep" votes. While there is a clear majority to delete, there is not the overwhelming majority necessary to indicate concensus to delete. the decision defaults to "keep" for now.

I note however that the article is in very poor shape being unformated and unverified. If the article is not cleaned up in a reasonable time, it may be appropriate to renominate it for deletion. Rossami (talk) 09:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jay London

Only thing notable about him is that he participated in an Idols-like show, and didn't win. Radiant! 09:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep besides being on Last Comic Standing, he's been a stand-up comic since the mid 80s and has a couple of film roles. 7,500 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:58, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete BTW, of the x-thousand Google hits are included the likes of "David Jay London," a triathelon athlete, several references to "sombody Jay London" in various family trees, etc. There's even a reference to a wedding. --BenWilson 17:31, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doing what sounds like routine stand-up comedy on national television is not inherently encyclopedic, and this reads like a promotional blurb. Wyss 18:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough - Google shows a mixed bag of "Jay London"s but the majority are not of this comedian, artist promo. Megan1967 00:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. ComCat 02:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, doesn't pass the deletion policy criteria - David Gerard 15:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually it does, as per the 'not suitable for Wikipedia' criterium. I'd suggest you re-read the article: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. From there, read the section 'Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base', and in particular, 'Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement'. Radiant! 10:33, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 02:07, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jim_Karygiannis

Some government figure from Greece. Notability not established. Radiant! 09:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

From Greece, but a Canadian government figure. Together with John McKay, also VfD'd, this looks like someone is trying to write pages on either every Canadian MP, or just the ones for his area. Like that one, this doesn't seem to say anything notably encyclopaedic about this fellow. A cautious Delete.
- OK, you've convinced me - you're right, elected parliamentarians are notable. Keep and cleanup - I'll try to remember to drop a note to whoever's making these things that we really would appreciate knowing what country he held all these positions in, though. TSP 01:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, vote changed as I noted it would be in ~~struck out~~ section by RickK's explanation. HyperZonk 16:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) Also a weak delete. Are MPs encyclopedic in and of themselves? Perhaps when the Honorable Gentleman has been a minister himself, or at least the chairperson of one of the committees he sits on. Now, however, probably not quite ready for wikipedia. I will retract, however, if members of the US House of Representatives have been deemed to be encyclopedic without any other accomplishments. HyperZonk 17:08, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, entry-level pol. Keep, for now. Wyss 18:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We've started getting articles on every US Member of Congress, past and present, and nobody has indicated that those are VfD-able. I hate to think of having an article on every parliamentarian from every country in the world, but I don't see where we can draw the line. Rick K 20:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Members of national legislatures are probably notable. This one is also a Parliamentary Secretary, which makes him a member of the Privy Council. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think it would be great if we had an article on every parlamentarian from every country in the world. Why shouldn't we? In my opinion an elected member of parliament is definitely notable. (Although the parallel has been used too many times on this page already, I must say I have a hard time seeing them lose a notability contest with Pokemon characters...) Furthermore, this particular one has held his post for 17 years. I have wikified the article and included a wikilink to the Canadian House of Commons and his electoral district. Alarm 21:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Alarm and others. / u p p l a n d 21:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Uppland who agrees with Alarm and others. GRider\^talk 22:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable Greek-Canadian parliamentary secretary. Megan1967 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Alarm said it best for me. – Beginning 02:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, what Alarm said. Kevintoronto 20:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep elected Members of Parliament. I note from the history that as of its original nomination, the article was poorly written and didn't make Karygiannis' notability very clear at all; I'd otherwise have to invoke "different rules for Canadians" yet again. Bearcat 00:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. CJCurrie 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Delete nominator - David Gerard 22:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Censoring people who disagree with you goes against the very idea of Wikipedia. Note that I didn't even vote to delete him, I merely put the matter up for discussion. Please be civil. Radiant! 12:21, Feb 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 based on current fame. Rossami (talk) 09:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jens_Unmack

Singer. Notability not established. But consider this remark, "A concert in which Unmack sung ... in Danish along with several other Danish artists was held in Denmark." Radiant! 09:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, although one must consider the context and first language of the author, too. Even so, given lack of any evidence of original output, this doesn't seem encyclopedic. Wyss 18:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Enough notability established, I think. sjorford →•← 12:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 15:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 01:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jim_Rose_Circus

Freak show circus, stub. Famous or just vanity? Radiant! 09:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Famous and notable. Gets google 12,000 hits. Not a perfect article, but keep. Kappa 10:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, famous. Has had TV shows made about it :-) Needs severe cleanup and expansion, but keep. TSP 11:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bad article, worthy subject. Used to tour with NIN. Keep. A.Kurtz 11:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Used to tour with Lollapalooza and was featured on a Simpsons episode where Homer Simpson joins a freakshow. Capitalistroadster 12:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. DJ Clayworth 18:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. I've seen this circus on television and on tour here btw, notable and (in)famous. Megan1967 00:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Utterly notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. World famous performance group.--Centauri 01:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not a good article as is. But a very notable subject. Quite controversial. --Monk Bretton 01:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep A popular (or unpopular) travelling freak show -- Longhair 18:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ridiculously famous. Oddly enough, the deletion policy doesn't include "nominator is ignorant and can't be bothered researching". This nomination is a perfect example for "delete nominator" - David Gerard 15:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Censoring people who disagree with you goes against the very idea of Wikipedia. Note that I didn't even vote to delete him, I merely put the matter up for discussion. Please be civil. Radiant! 12:20, Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 16:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jin_Saotome

Sounds like a description of a roleplaying character. Radiant! 09:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

"What links here" tells me he's a video game character, and in fact he seems to have crossed over from one game to another. Merge somewhere or keep. Kappa 09:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cruft. Wyss 18:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable gamecruft. Megan1967 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep unless someone writes an article on Cyberbots, in which case merge and redirect there. -Sean Curtin 02:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll abstain for now, but I'll supply a little background here. Jin's a character from a fighting game by Capcom entitled Cyberbots who was also included in the Marvel vs. Capcom series. I don't think he's particularly notable (i.e. he's not an icon of the genre like Ryu or Chun Li), but I'm not too versed on Wikipedia policy in these areas. --HBK 18:08, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, videogame fancruft. JamesBurns 06:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jinnahbhai_Poonja

Article consists only of a photo. Possible copyvio. Anyone heard of him? Radiant! 09:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete he's the father of the founder of Pakistan. That said, relatives of notable people are not necessarily notable in their own right. Also, this might just be me, but does that photo look... wrong somehow? Like it's been retouched by watercolours or something? It's kind of eerie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A picture by itself is not enough for an article. Carrp | Talk 17:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mohammad Ali Jinnah. I think the picture is just a low quality scan of a daguerreotype. Indeed, only claim to fame appears to be his son, however it might be preferable to redirect instead of delete. Let's not forget to remove the links to this article in that one if we redirect! ;) HyperZonk 17:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic, no context, not an article. Comment: Yeah, it looks retouched, lots of family portrait photos a century ago were retouched like this, often ineptly, which yields the charactertistically disturbing look. Wyss 18:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 19:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 00:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alf Arcayan

I'd never heard of this guy, but I did a Google test and got--I'm not making this up--ONE hit. Seriously, this smells like an attack page, a borderline speedy but not quite. Szyslak 09:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete The 1 google hit does not even concern him, and I didn't get anything with searches like "Ding bling Arcayan" etc. So Non-notable seems to apply. Glaurung 10:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete probable hoax, but if true still not notable Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, it sounds pretty hoaxish. I was actually going to say that in my VfD summary, but I forgot. Szyslak 20:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete BJAODN. HyperZonk 17:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agreed this on the edge of speediness, either way it's a hoaxy ad. Wyss 18:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above.Brookie 19:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test, artist promo. Megan1967 00:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jurij I of Halicz

Doesn't establish notability, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Radiant! 09:41, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

13th century polish monarch. Significant, although the article definately needs expanded. Keep - TB 12:22, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Appears, from superficial research, to have been a prince of Galicia (Central Europe). We tend to Keep monarchs who reigned (and send them to Cleanup for cross-linking them to the countries concerned — Well, whaddayaknow! ☺). Compare Jurij II of Halicz. Uncle G 12:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Keep as he was a regnant king, not that I'm a monarchist or anything! BTW, looks like there may be some need to normalize and redirect spelling, as Jurij I appears to be spelled as Yuriy I in Jurij II of Halicz's article. HyperZonk 17:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but plainly needs cleanup and expansion. Wyss 18:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 12:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Delete nominator - David Gerard 15:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Censoring people who disagree with you goes against the very idea of Wikipedia. Note that I didn't even vote to delete him, I merely put the matter up for discussion. Please be civil. Radiant! 12:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Nominating articles on VFD that are obviously not nonsense, vanity or original research - and therefore not valid subjects for deletion in the first place - is a selfish and unneccesary imposition on editors who would rather not have to waste hours of their time ensuring that good content isn't summarily deleted from Wikipedia.--Centauri 13:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Marginal agreement with Centauri. While it's important that everyone feel welcome to nominate articles for VfD, it's also important that they consider the cost of doing so. 8 people each spent perhaps 5 minutes researching Jurij I of Halicz to establish he was worthy of an article here - 40 minutes that may have been better spent. It's not unreasonable to request that a nominator to ask him or herself 'do I believe that the deletion of this article will improve Wikipedia more than 40 minutes of other work would'. - TB 11:06, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JSR170

This is pretty strange, it looks like part of a patent application. It doesn't describe what the technology in question is, simply who might be interested in it. Might be copyvio but it sounds too vague and descriptory for that. What to do? Radiant! 09:58, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

It describes a JSR, i.e. a Java Specifications Request if I got my acronyms right. It's a formal document for suggesting a new feature for the Java programming language or its standard library. 193.167.132.66 10:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- So that means transwiki to wikisource would be appropriate, no? Radiant! 10:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is either original research, a promotional blurb or both. Wyss 18:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 19:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - DavidWBrooks 19:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE then REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 16:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mind myths

This was a recreation of Mind Myths by User:144.214.54.82, which was nominated for deletion in January (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mind Myths) with the consensus to merge with Brain. Normally, this should have been speedied as a recreation of deleted material. Instead, it was cleaned up and expanded a bit. When I found it on Jan 18, I felt that it was unencyclopedic, but noticed that most of the information seemed to reference a single book (Mind Myths by Sergio Della Sala). Because of this, I changed the subject of the article from "mind myths" themselves, to this book. On January 27, User:144.214.54.82 changed the subject back. I reverted this on February 10, but User:Paranoid reverted me the next day. We began discussing this on the talk page, when User:dbenbenn pointed out that this article had already been deleted.

There are two version for this page. I feel that both should be deleted. If the article is about "mind myths" themselves, it is unencyclopedic and has already been deleted once. If the article is about the book, Mind Myths, it is non-notable (its Amazon.com rank is over 1,000,000). -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 09:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

delete - I disagree that it would necessarily be unencyclopedic in the first case, but in its current form it has nothing that can't be covered in brain.
- Unsigned vote by User:Paranoid.
If the article is about "mind myths" themselves, it is unencyclopedic and has already been deleted once. — No, it has already been kept once. A consensus to "merge" is a consensus to keep, and to merge. Uncle G 12:34, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
- This is a pointless fork of material, including the book reference, that has already been merged into brain. Redirect to brain, Deleting beforehand according to taste. Uncle G 18:16, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
- The information was merged into brain. Everything that was deemed worthy of keeping already exists there, this is just a duplicate. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 20:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as potential fork, otherwise this isn't an encyclopedic classification. Wyss 18:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Brain. Megan1967 00:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Brain. JamesBurns 06:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My vote would be to expand the article to cover pseudopsychology, a subject with no entry at present. GPJ

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Vampire Ivory

Reads like a hoax or some cruft from some role-playing game. Or could this be a real myth instead? No help from Google. jni 09:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silly, probably created by goth wannabes. Not even on Snopes, so not a famous hoax. Delete. Radiant! 10:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete likely some sort of cruft from some kind of ficton or RPG Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete cruft. – flamurai (t) 11:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Would appear to be something from a modern, obscure work of fiction. No impact outside that work, so clearly not warranting an article. Even worse, the article presents this fiction as fact. Average Earthman 13:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At best, would need a fiction template tag, but it's not even notable enough for that in my opinion. HyperZonk 17:26, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, plainly fiction (and should have been tagged as such), this is either innocent goth cruft or a stealth ad for some sort of fiction or game. Wyss 18:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, even if it's real. Carrp | Talk 18:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Who thinks of this rubbish? Brookie 19:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Vampire. If the author is serious about wanting this material in, then it could go into the Vampire article rather than into the trash bin. Courtland 05:49, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Vampire, and add redirect. Megan1967 07:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Absolutely do not merge unless the material is independently verified as a legend or from some notable fictional source, as opposed to someone's RPG campaign. Gamaliel 07:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur Kappa 08:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with Gamaliel. Radiant! 09:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. I'm going to switch the two articles while I'm at it, so Inverse surveillance will redirect to Sousveillance. dbenbenn | talk 16:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sousveillance

Introduction of a neologism only attested in "hip speak", without any clear explanation of what it means. Personal research in sociology. Incomprehensible babble ("cyborglogs"). Advertisement of a certain NYC group. David.Monniaux 10:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See previous nomination at Talk:Inverse surveillance.

Delete Rama 10:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sousveillance scores a respectable 25K Google hits so perhaps it is not a neologism. I too consider that Stefanos Pantagis writes a lot of high-faluting drivel. Look what he wrote about creating his Equiveillance article Equiveillance is my first wikipedia submission. Had fun writting it: the square paragraph system of linking words withing wikipedia creates all sorts of linguistic tension, and forces the article to sort of fit in and explain relative to the other definition, but is extraordinary very free at the same time. [40] (this blog link may change quickly). -- RWH 11:57, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
- I also suggest a look at the edit history comments of Equiveillance and the first paragraph of the 10:18, 2005-02-14 revision of that article. Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Keep. The two main reasons to keep are (1) sousveillance already survived a vfd in the past. Since then, it has grown substantially in common usage, and in many of the newspapers and magazines it no longer appears in quotes, or with definition or explanation. For example, I got a call from the Life Magazine fact checker, who wanted to learn more about this, and she thought it was an old French word (i.e. didn't realize it was newly coined) since it has been in such widespread use. (2) A large number of publications, printed materials, articles, etc., make reference to http://wikipedia.org/Sousveillance and thus deletion of this entry would create a loss in faith of the permanence of Wikipedia entries, and the ability to make scientific or scholarly references into Wikipedia. Glogger 17:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Please provide a Wiki link which shows record of this article surviving a prior votes for deletion. I would like to review it. GRider\^talk 18:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to inverse surveillance. It seems likely that this concept will get some air as the assumption of "public privacy" is eroded by the increasing ubiquity of security cameras, etc. Therefore I think that the more NPOV and non-neologistic article might subsume this article. All in my humble opinion, of course. HyperZonk 17:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge. Wyss 17:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, to inverse surveillance. Megan1967 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Partial merge and redirect. Dumb but popular neologism. -Sean Curtin 02:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
"Sousveillance" was previously nominated for deletion in April 2004. See Talk:Inverse surveillance. The decision then was keep. The article was later moved to "Inverse surveillance". I don't particularly care which title gets the article but one of them should redirect to the other. The fork is inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Sousveillance" was renamed after it survived the VfD in 2004. I don't think the re-naming was a good thing because (1) sousveillance is a broader concept than inverse surveillance (sousveillance is a proper superset of inverse surveillance); (2) sousveillance is in far wider usage than inverse surveillance e.g. 27,000 Google hits as compared with approx. 800, and an even higher ratio in the published literature. Disclaimer: I also coined the term "inverse surveillance" so I'm equally partial/non-impartial to both of these terms. Glogger 13:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to go with merge and redirect to Inverse surveillance, which is a better article but still rather messy, and in need of some NPOVing. Inverse surveillance implies there's a difference between that and "sousveillance", but it isn't clear to me what the difference is. The sousveillance article is just a mess; when I read it I didn't have the remotest idea what it was talking about. --Angr 23:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I propose the following: (1) get rid of or the poorly written sousveillance article; (2) rename the "inverse surveillance" article to sousveillance; (3) make a re-direct from "inverse surveillance" that points to the sousveillance article. That way the article will be titled by sousveillance (the more widely used term than inverse surveillance) but will contain the better written of the two, and eliminate the redundancy of having two articles in which one describes a topic that is a subset of the other. Glogger 04:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is decided to go with my suggestion of getting rid of Sousveillance and then renaming Inverse_surveillance to Sousveillance, perhaps we could pull in some parts of the deleted article to merge. Also, Inverse_surveillance, once renamed to Sousveillance, would hopefully then also retain the edit history and the original VfD result of "keep". Some minor edits would be required because I (perhaps in bad judgement) edited the article once it was changed to "Inverse surveillance" in the past, in order to match that changed title, but on second thought, it seems like it had been a mistake to rename it to Inverse surveillance and it probably should have been left as Sousveillance, so as not to produce this fork between what is now two articles in which one is a proper superset of the other (making the other redundant to some degree). Glogger 04:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Equiveillance and Equalveillance

Neologism, only found in 49 hits on Google. Personal research in sociology. Unclear meaning. David.Monniaux 10:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Rama 10:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Sousveillance (also up for VfD - see above) -- RWH 11:50, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
- So you vote to merge these with Sousveillance, and vote to delete Sousveillance. I see. Subtle. ☺ Uncle G 13:58, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
As per the edit history comments for Equiveillance, Speedy Delete (under criterion #2 or criterion #10) Equiveillance as a pointless fork, from an acknowledged typo, of Equalveillance. Vote pending on Equalveillance. Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Keep- quite notable --219.78.112.150 14:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: neologism, original research. I thought at first this was Steve Mann (User:Glogger) again but it turns out it's one of his associates -- try Googling for Stefanos "Steve Mann". Stefanos seems to have the same promotional instincts as Steve, although to his credit, it's not self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to inverse surveillance. Seems like the terminology may be worth a note in an existing article to me. HyperZonk 17:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Dr. Pantagis appears to have written a good article, and also equiveillance is growing in usage. For example, we have an upcoming conference on this topic, and I believe that equiveillance (the equilibrium/balance between sur- and sous-veillance) is of growing interest to many researchers who are building upon this concept. A number of printed publications, proceedings, and the like, make reference to equiveillance, so I hope that we can keep this article, as distinct from either surveillance or sousveillance. Also, it is preferable to have one word, rather than a two-word solution like inverse surveillance that is harder to search on, and not used as much in the published literature (and means something quite different than equiveillance). Glogger 17:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, not-so-subtle promotion. Side comment: This article is badly written, contains ugly neologisms and once one digs past all the latin, contains little helpful material. Wyss 17:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirects to Inverse surveillance, as per my Sousveillance vote. Megan1967 01:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless it gets some serious rewriting. Kukuman 03:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Unlike sousveillance, this is only getting 22 non-duplicative Google hits (and many of them appear to be Wikipedia-derivative). Delete as a neologism. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

let me finish my edits, but due to patient load, it is difficult to get to all the corrections by the five day deadline: i strongly believe there are many concepts that define our modern world that can be represented in an image, or a word, or a cluster of words called a poem. My attempt here is not self promotional; it touches upon the worry of a concerned citizen as I watch many persons slowly become compassionateless to the elderly. Equiveillance is an important concept to many persons, and perhaps to those voting for delete. I hope to express this notion with the rewrites I have begun, opening my series of thoughts phenomenologically as a wikified glog. A detached humanity that does not see the importance of tribal dynamics, falls into the fragmentation of feeling that becomes a cold detachement that leads to human evil. We watch as humans to cooperate and protect. many are weak and exposed to the one way surveillance of imprisoned emotion, locked into the lost of cruel abandonment.

I will need more time before the final verdict, I thank you for your understanding.

stef

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Update: The original article was named John McKay. It has since been moved to John McKay (politician). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John McKay

Some politician, country is even unspecified, and only a secretary of finance. Do we really want all those in WP? Radiant! 10:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian politician, elected three times. Represents tens of thousands of people. Definately significant. I've added slightly to the article and say keep. - TB 12:17, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Improve Seems to be some Canadian politician, not major, but certainly not insignificant. David.Monniaux 12:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Carrp | Talk 16:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Brookie 18:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Canadian MP - article looks decent now. / u p p l a n d 20:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Members of national legislatures are probably notable. This one is also a Parliamentary Secretary and consequently a member of the Privy Council. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, even though I had no clue who he was prior to reading this. ;) National officials are certainly notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article. – Beginning 02:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kevintoronto 20:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Spinboy 20:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. CJCurrie 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 12:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - delete nominator - David Gerard 15:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Censoring people who disagree with you goes against the very idea of Wikipedia. Note that I didn't even vote to delete him, I merely put the matter up for discussion. Please be civil. Radiant! 12:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All Canadian MPs are notable. --YUL89YYZ 22:15, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John D'Esterre

He seems to be a footnote in the bio of a man named Guinness. No notability of himself (at least none established) Radiant! 10:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. – flamurai (t) 11:33, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is on the fuzzy frontier between genealogy and (very) minor history. Wyss 17:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. I learned nothing from this.Brookie 18:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; thus, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

John Wardle

Current chairman of a famous football club, and external link thereof. That's all. Needs lots more information, or deletion. Radiant! 10:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I took out the link, because it wasn't useful and it seems like spam. He's notable, but it's a substub, so no vote. Kappa 15:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic content, although someone might add some while this is in VfD. Wyss 17:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's a stub, no other grounds for deletion. I will categorise it. Nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding of policy, so please read up on it. Wincoote 20:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, it was just one line of text plus an external link. Are football managers notable? Which part of policy did you mean exactly? Radiant! 22:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - There are lots of articles about football managers, but this man isn't a football manager. He is more prominent than thousands of people with articles. It isn't the role of vfd to try to turn Wikipedia into a purist academic encyclopedia against the grain of established standards for prominence. Wincoote 08:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I never said that. I'm not omniscient, you know, and the current article does not establish notability at all. Like I said above, 'needs lots more information, or deletion'. Since you're so opposed to the latter, why not add to the article? Radiant! 11:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What does "un-encyclopaedic" mean? You appear to be voting on the basis that an article is a stub again, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. Wincoote 09:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only speaking for myself, the article provides zero evidence this person has contributed anything out of the average to the sport or its management, for example. Wyss 14:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, stubishness is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is lack of notability. - SimonP 16:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment stubbishness may not be a valid reason for reason, but lack of notability is. Djbrianuk 19:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually, it isn't. If it is, please quote the relevant portion of Wikipedia:Deletion policy - David Gerard 15:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Oh yes it is. In deletion policy, the first criterium is not suitable for Wikipedia Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. From there, read the section 'Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base', and in particular, 'Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement'. Radiant! 10:32, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Obvious keep. Substubs are A Good Thing. sjorford →•← 12:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 15:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Percy Jones

"Googling brings up little info". I infer from the article that he has written an article in a journal of labour history. Not notable. Radiant! 10:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Can't really start an article from this, anyway. Anything would be a complete rewrite. – flamurai (t) 11:37, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, confirmed by the article itself. Carrp | Talk 16:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Insufficient notability. Now if he had invented modern Fabianism ... HyperZonk 17:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is not an article, topic is not encyclopedic. Wyss 17:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above.Brookie 18:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jovo Stanisavljevic Caruga

Anyone heard of this guy? Not enough information in the article to establish notability. Radiant! 10:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Google only turns up a few hits which hint at a possible copyvio and evidence this is some sort of personal/family vanity. Wyss 17:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This was hard to suss out. I found a few Google hits in Slavic when searching for "Slavonski Robin Hud" which include the name Jovo Stanisavljević Čaruga(they didn't show up for Caruga, because of the missing accents). I then Googled the proper spelling with accents and got substantially more hits (71). That's not a whole lot, but I'd imagine there just aren't many Slavic folk resources online. Therefore, I'm suggesting we keep it unless someone who knows Slavic folklore says the person isn't notable. HyperZonk 17:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Tentative Keep, with reservations, after Googling the accented spelling (thanks to HyperZonk) showed almost all of those hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Most are for a Serbian outlaw, and a few are for a Serbian athlete. If this is verified as not a wikipropagated hoax (for the latter's self-promotion or roasting) but a longlasting and widespread "Slavic Robin Hood" legend, then I think it's an encyclopedic topic for the English WP despite the fact that little seems to be online. Barno 23:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails to establish notability, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, probably notable enough. He has been on List of Serbs for some time, under a slightly different name (now fixed). sjorford →•← 12:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Geraint Brython Edwards

Not notable in the extreme Brookie 10:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. – flamurai (t) 11:32, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 16:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion, vanity. Wyss 17:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - 3 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 18:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

WRDF

Non-notable low-power Christian radio station in Columbus, Ohio. Not only that, it's at the wrong title. Szyslak 10:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I (just now!) put up an article for WRFD, due to its historical relationship with WNCI and otherwise for completeness of Columbus radio stations. However, I fat fingered the orginal posting and accidently created WRDF. I propose that WRDF be deleted, but keep WRFD. Earpol

Delete this one. Wyss 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redir to WRFD (there seem to be no AM, FM, or TV stations with this callsign, and the few orgs whose initials happen to match don't seem very notable). Niteowlneils 21:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Surely we don't need redirects for typos - at least, not ones of radio callsigns. If we redir this one, presumably we should create WFRD, RWDF etc. for consistency, and so on for every existent radio station. Delete - in fact, I'll send it for Speedy Delete under criterion #10 TSP 00:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, agree with TSP - no redirects for this either. Megan1967 01:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
06:56, Feb 16, 2005 Jimfbleak deleted WRDF (listed for speedy deletion)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 02:07, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

WRFD

Same as the VfD on WRDF, but this article has the correct title. Wikipedia is not a radio station database. Szyslak 11:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not; but I don't actually see that this article is unencyclopaedic. The article itself is a decent encyclopaedia article, and is granted relevance because its spinoff WNCI is now Central Ohio's top-rated radio station. Keep TSP 12:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Disagreed, for the same reason that parents of a notable person are not by themselves notable. Delete. Radiant! 15:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Wyss 17:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A radio station that has survived >four decades, despite ownership changes. I'm not inclined to start an article for a radio station started by some acquaintences of mine that lasted less than a year, but this seems notable. 6730 hits for wrfd am. With radio stations, I'd be inclined to draw the line at student-run stations, but WP even has articles on some of those. Niteowlneils 19:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep — RJH 20:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just falls under the bar for me. Megan1967 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Niteowlneils - 4 decades in the radio business is notable. Johntex 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep WRFD has a rich history that resulted in the creation of WNCI. It was one of the first stations catering exclusively to the agricultural community, it is strongly linked to the politics of agriculture and the founding of the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and it is one of a dwindling number of daytime-only radio stations Earpol 21:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Additional comment: the first VfD here states flatly "Wikipedia is not a radio station database." This is not true as evidenced by Lists of radio stations in North and Central America which is clearly an attempt to build such a database within Wikipedia. In fact, if one drills down on this page to a particular state's page, e.g., List of radio stations in Ohio, you will see that the database already contains entries for every station that people could think of, and the standard is to use Wiki hypertext to point to the stations Wikipedia listing, even when such article is waiting to be created.
All radio stations are notable. Keep.--Centauri 01:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a radio station database. JamesBurns 06:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gerald Nupa

Non-notable creator of non-notable web sites. 11 Google hits. – flamurai (t) 11:26, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Concur. jni 12:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 16:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
D. BesigedB ^(talk) 16:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 17:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above.Brookie 18:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, probable vanity. Megan1967 01:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arangundy

Talks about a family seal and some possibilities of its origin, but notability of the family is not established in article. Radiant! 12:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, genealogy, reads as if there may be other issues lurking around this one. Wyss 17:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, genealogy, possible family vanity. Megan1967 01:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hedgehog (zine)

Non notable student zine. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PhoenixFeathers. JoaoRicardo 03:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Delete. Radiant! 12:08, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 16:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, local student zine. Wyss 17:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not yet notable. HyperZonk 18:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The organization is non-notable. Their publication is even less so. Delete. Rick K 20:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - article even notes that the less than notable zine is not updated regularly. Kainaw 15:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is is notable if it is the only teenage published zine in the San Gabriel Valley? Because I wrote that article a 1AMish and forgot to put that in. I think.Tsuyoshikentsu 02:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terra Incognita

This has no useful content, and is just a link to an online game. --Brendanfox 12:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Terra Australis Incognita. Radiant! 15:39, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad, RD would help. Wyss 17:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert --BenWilson 17:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep see below for current thoughts. HyperZonk 16:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) Delete for being shameless promotional material. HyperZonk 18:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment there are over 200,000 Google hits for that term. There is quite a number of hits for a science fiction magazine by that name. Perhaps the present article can be deleted and a new one written up, which includes alternate meanings for that term? No vote as yet. Megan1967 01:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If it's an oft-used Latin phrase, maybe we should setup a disambig for it? Radiant! 08:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  - Disambig per above sounds good. Kappa 09:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. In my opinion, the Latin phrase (now accepted by many dictionaries as English) probably belongs in the Wiktionary. The original internet game advertisement belongs neither in Wiktionary nor Wikipedia, as all of the delete votes above should make clear. If it is generally felt that Terra Australis (referred to by Radiant! above as Terra Australis Incognita, which redirects to Terra Australis) should also be a target, then we should indeed have a disambiguation page. I have been bold without doing the probably needed transwiki. HyperZonk 16:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disambig has been implemented; unless anyone has anything to add, move to close discussion. Alba 02:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Turn into disambiguation page, with the original use in the top - Skysmith 11:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep stub and fix capitalization. Gazpacho 02:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep in its current form. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 09:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a disambiguation page. JamesBurns 06:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 21:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tryad

This is really just a vanity page, with nothing notable about this band whatsoever. The fact that they collaborated over the internet applies to hundreds of bands. Completely useless. --Brendanfox 12:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 17:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete What hundreds of bands? I'd have to disagree that this isn't a noteworthy example, considering that their work has been used as an example of the use and worth of the Creative Commons movement by one of its founders, Professor Lawrence Lessig. Certainly, though it's not there yet, we shouldn't let the page die because of a quick-triggered user or so that doesn't know otherwise. BCarea 19:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This band doesn't even come up when audio searching the creative common's website, furthermore a search with "lawrence lessig" and tryad yeilds less than ten results. The only mention of it, seems to be on band-members websites. There are plenty of creative commons examples given in the wikipedia article here. A search for "creative commons" and "tryad" yields less than twenty results, with almost all, being clones of a "press release" created by the band, promoting themselves, made to sound like an article. These twenty results, should be compared to the 5.6 million results that "creative commons" alone yields, how can we say that Tryad is of any significance to the creative commons movement? I really don't believe that the unverified claim that Professor Lessig played one of their songs makes the band noteable. This is just self-promotion. --Brendanfox 01:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible band vanity. Megan1967 01:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Block compress error: pending deletion. Joyous 01:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Counts Bianchi

Once more, WP is not a genealogy database. Radiant! 12:44, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, genealogy. Wyss 17:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, geneaology. Megan1967 01:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Wikipedia should have articles on all titles and honours, and this seems to be part of a series on Maltese nobility. sjorford →•← 16:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Communes of the Province of Vercelli

(edit) Okay, I now know where Vercelli is and why it is notable, but still this list contains only one town which is "Little more than the main street and a few side streets." Radiant! 12:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Go to your nearest encyclopaedia, open it to its entry for Vercelli, and I'm sure that it will tell you where Vercelli is. If you're lucky, it might even tell you where the Province of Vercelli is, too. ☺
This list should have been marked {{Italy-geo-stub}}{{expand list}} (and renamed) long ago. Let's give it another try. Keep and Move to "List of ...". Uncle G 17:03, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 22:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ciantar-Paleologo

More gratuitous genealogy. Also 'used from such and such site with permission' doesn't necessarily conform to the WP license. Radiant! 12:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, genealogy, possible copyvio, reads as if there's an underlying political agenda. Wyss 17:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Question: Are they related to the Palaeologus dynasty which has its own article? User:Dimadick
- There appears to be a relation, even if they are separated by five centuries. The Palaeologus are from the Byzantine Empire, and the Ciantar seem to have been given the title after the fall thereof. Possible merge. Radiant! 11:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment - "used with permission" in this case means the guy who runs that site uploaded these articles himself. You might want to talk to User:Tancarville - there are tons of Maltese nobility articles. Adam Bishop 22:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 04:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cassar Desain

More genealogy, consisting of a literal quote from a book (but it says, 'used with permission' so not sure if it's copyvio) Radiant! 13:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, genealogy, possible copyvio, reads as if there's an underlying political agenda. Wyss 17:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: User:Tancarville has written tons of these articles about Maltese nobility, all copied from a website which he claims to own. RickK 20:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- We should form a consensus on all of them, then. I hold that WP is not a genealogy db, and possible copyvio. Radiant! 11:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  - Mmm, to a degree. I would say that Maltese nobility are not intrinsically notable; but I am sure there are some Maltese nobility who are notable. While an opinion that Maltese nobility are not intrinsically notable would be a Good Thing, I hope it doesn't lead to the deletion of articles where notability actually DOES exist for independent reasons. (Interestingly, we had this debate about UK peers a couple of days back and there seemed to be a lot of opinion - which I disagreed with - that being a UK peer is intrinsically notable.) TSP 15:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Not a copyvio if the author is who he claims to be, which I see no reason to doubt. The issue is perhaps whether he really wants to release it under GFDL and accept the edits of others. And the "by permission" thing should be on the talkpages. /u p p l a n d 17:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Additional comment as to notability: Aristocratic families (i.e. not the petty nobility of low-level officers and civil servants that exists in most of Europe) are almost always somewhat notable because of landownership, patronage of churches etc and the political significance of their relationships. In most cases at least a few members were notable in themselves. But this article is not really written in encyclopedic style, lacks wikilinks and other things which would put things better in context. The important individuals should be in articles of their own, the others could perhaps be mentioned in passing in an shorter article on the family (more like the British peerage articles). I wish the author would spend some time cleaning up his articles and adapting them to Wikipedia style. / u p p l a n d 18:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. —Korath (Talk) 05:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hamburger or Truth

Joke. Thue | talk 14:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speed deleted as a recreation of deleted prank article Hamburger of Truth. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. sjorford →•← 22:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Beergasm

Non-notable neologism slang dicdef. Thue | talk 14:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, slang neologism. Wyss 17:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. HyperZonk 18:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. What rubbish! Brookie 18:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Davenbelle 19:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As above. Carrp | Talk 22:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How creative! Frank12

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. —Korath (Talk) 05:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hamburger of Truth

Looks like a prank, ranting or at best a commercial - and look at the price ! This is certainly unencyclopedic. JoJan 14:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

17:13, Feb 14, 2005 DJ Clayworth deleted Hamburger of Truth (patent nonsense) —Korath (Talk) 05:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
15:16, Feb 15, 2005 Wile E. Heresiarch deleted Hamburger of Truth (speed delete: recreation of deleted prank article) —Korath (Talk) 05:58, Feb 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. jni 13:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bushtrapping

Neologism. No hits on Google. --Lee Hunter 15:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 16:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Wyss 17:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. HyperZonk 18:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Brookie 18:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable - zero Google hits, neologism. Megan1967 05:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Future Zelda Games

Unsubstantiated stub, likely a hoax. Radiant! 17:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Brookie 18:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary, even if these games were anything more than vaporware. Xezbeth 19:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite Obviously simply hearsay, but Wikipedia could do with an article on future Zelda games. --Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Content is A) Untrue. The GC game shown at E3 is Wind Waker 2. B) Best merged into whatever the main article on the Legend of Zelda series is. Snowspinner 20:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic and likely untrue. Carrp | Talk 02:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 05:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation is unencyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 23:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with The Legend of Zelda series, assuming the information is true. There's no need for this topic to have its own article. 23skidoo 05:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear japan

This is just opinion, and already exists at List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons in a much better form Tompagenet 18:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as this is largely opinion and unencyclopedic material. If someone wants to explore it properly outside of the article noted above, it might belong under Japan. HyperZonk 18:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Brookie 18:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No verifiable content whatever. And no compelling reason to fork. Delete. Uncle G 19:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Delete. Part unverifiable content, part speculation. --Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 00:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete just an opinion piece. Johntex 02:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV essay, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just... not encyclopedic at all. Looks like a bad essay IMHO. -- EmperorBMA|話す 18:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's just a rant. --LostLeviathan 03:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, i think its about time that someone got it right. The united states' stupid, bigoted idealogy keeps them from seeing that not EVERYone wants to be like them. That some countries absolutely loathe them. That maybe Japan has been hurt, and it has taken the sixty some years for them to start to retaliate. Now, someone has finally put a remark in, about this, and they have been cruelly turned down by many people, which are no doubt all american. Shame. Shame on all of you. Its a keep, definitely. -- This unsigned vote by BlackerNight
Delete; this might have been a keep if Wikipedia were a collection of op-ed essays. But since it isn't, there's nothing "cruel" about turning down something which didn't belong here in the first place. Shame. Shame on people who want to exploit Wikipedia as a soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xtreme Sandwiching

A marketing campaign of no significance, and certainly less notable than extreme ironing. sjorford:// 17:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - oh honestly! what drivel. --Brookie 18:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable or interesting. Thue | talk 22:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - As I've said before, "crap" should be an official Wikipedia term for pages like this. --Woohookitty 23:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. You have got to be kidding. --Calton 23:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article is stuffed with non-notable advertising while holding a jar of crap. Zzyzx11 00:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete extreme idiocy. Johntex 02:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, trivial, Marmite doesn't hold a candle against Vegemite. Megan1967 05:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Enochlau 06:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I can see it now! It's Xtreme Sewing!! --Woohookitty 09:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Xtreme Delete. Heh heh. Zetawoof 03:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP or MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 22:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Carper Award

Not notable - and possible hoax Brookie 18:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, no, it does seem to exist (it's been mentioned in a motion passed by the House of Representatives of Georgia, what more do you want? ;-) ); but probably not worthy of its own article. I think it's capable of a Merge into Academic Competition Federation and delete.
- Unsigned by TSP. —Korath (Talk) 01:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs clarification and expansion. Megan1967 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If it gets elaborated on, maybe even with a link to an actual page on Carper himself, then we should keep it. Otherwise, merge it.
- Unsigned by 66.168.77.112; it is his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 01:57, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
I say keep it - I was looking up the award and was happy to find this, as is.
- Unsigned by 24.6.209.7; it is his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 01:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable enough. JamesBurns 06:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Academic Competition Federation. —Korath (Talk) 01:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

White Oaks High School

Non-notable high school. DJ Clayworth 18:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete for appalling lack of content and notability. Another bored student in the school library, another nanostub. - Lucky 6.9 18:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete this useless sub-sub-stub. Gamaliel 20:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete for lack of content. Article doesn't even tell me where the school is located and isn't linked in- or outside Wikipedia. Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It is in Oakville, Ontario.--Lucky13pjn 21:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, appears to be written by a bored student, possibly the name mentioned in the article. No useful information to merge with appropriate geographical article. Average Earthman 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I briefly attended this high school a few years back and I know it does not deserve an article.--Lucky13pjn 21:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Incidentally, the correct name is White Oaks Secondary School. I'll change my vote if there are more notable alumni than golfer Adam Weir, or something really special about the school itself. Here's their brag sheet from the school web site: [41]. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Almost seems speediable for "little or no content". It would be exagerrating to call this a sub-stub. --BM 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only thing that comes to my mind after reading it is "Who cares?" Zzyzx11 23:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Minor Alteration Maybe? It might be of more significance if there were more information about it. Until then, where the heck is Oakville? Frank12
Merge into appropriate Oakville and delete - Skysmith 11:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep we have university entries, why not schools. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
- We have school entries, why not students? Delete. —Korath (Talk) 08:22, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Because universities do scientific research, and schools do not. Delete. Radiant! 09:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. Allow for organic growth. --Andylkl 18:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable school. Carrp | Talk 20:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Where were all you voters on the many other school articles that slip under the radar? Delete. Lacrimosus 22:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sigh. I'll never win this battle, but I feel that all schools should have an entry on wikipedia, no matter how notable. We let all small towns have their own entry, don't we? Even towns of absolutely no import. We allow towns with populations of less than 100 people to have their own entries, and all the articles ever says is the stuff the robots put in there. Yet we don't allow individual articles for each school? I don't understand the difference. So I'll vote keep, even though I already know I've lost this one. Maybe my vote will convince someone else to rethink their position the next time a school article gets put up on VfD. Eric Herboso 22:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Although this really is a crap article, it could help the Oakville page. And I think schools should get wiki entries. And students too if they're worth mentioning.

Vote was given by User:DavidMendoza. Please remember to sign your votes on VfD pages.

Keep - just about all schools pass the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test - David Gerard 22:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Jinnah Poonja, father of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.jpg

not notable - no copyright info Brookie

delete. Mikkalai 19:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. There's no copyright information! Remove it as quickly as possible to avoid a possible lawsuit. Zzyzx11 23:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This should go on WP:IFD. --SPUI (talk) 01:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Needham Community Theatre

Not notable - Brookie 19:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Gamaliel 19:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does this really have the level of wider notability required for an encyclopedia article? Perhaps a brief mention in an article on Needham, Massachusetts, but I haven't seen any evidence of a quick google that this is any more than an average amateur theatre group. Average Earthman 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I live close to Needham and have never heard of this. A mention on Needham, Massachusetts would be probably suffice. Carrp | Talk 22:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It looks like there not enough notable information about it. Zzyzx11 23:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. The substub article doesn't establish notability, as there are hundreds of small local community theatres. I asked a friend who lives in Needham with artistic and creative family members, and he hasn't heard of it. 209.2.145.102 00:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Above vote was mine, wasn't logged in. Barno 00:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Plank 03:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Make a mention in Needham, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 11:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mention in Needham, Massachusetts and delete. I am familiar with the Fiddlehead Theatre of Norwood, Massachusetts, and Bay Colony Productions of Foxboro, Massachusetts, and the Reagle Players of Waltham, Massachusetts, and The Company Theatre of Norwell, Massachusetts, and the Sunset Players of Sharon, Massachusetts, and the Walpole Footlighters of Walpole, Massachusetts, but hadn't heard of this group before. They do two performances a year; they perform in a school auditorium; from that, and judging from their website, I'd guess they are less notable than the seven I just listed, though more notable than the Parish Players of the First Church and Parish, Dedham, Massachusetts. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 22:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don Nelson

Not notable - vanity? --Brookie 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand, or at the very least, mark it as a sports-related stub so that the Wikipedians familar with the National Basketball Association can improve it. My friend just reminded me that Don Nelson won the NBA Coach of the Year Award at least 3 times. Zzyzx11 23:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, same reasons as Zzyzx11. Should be able to find detailed coaching history on Mavericks website. – Beginning 02:11, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand. This NBA article suggests he has more than 40 years experience as a NBA coach and player. NBA Coach of the year three times and voted one of the top ten NBA coaches of all time. Doubt it is vanity.Capitalistroadster 10:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand not vanityXpendersx 20:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep - that's not what "vanity" means - David Gerard 22:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, clearly not vanity. While I think professional sports are disgustingly overrated by society as a whole, that's no reason to delete, and there's plenty of precedent for articles about coaches. —Korath (Talk) 02:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 02:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Newman (actor)

Not notable - vanity? Brookie 19:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand, or at the very least mark it as a stub. The Wikipedians that are working on the soap opera articles currently have been making separate ones for each and every actor who stared in a soap opera. Zzyzx11 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Random nomination of one of many in a class of articles whose acceptibility is established by precedent. Wincoote 09:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 07:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Megan once again votes the opposite of the current majority vote. This is a noteable actor in his field. Keep. RickK 07:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Voting should not be about playing follow the leader. Megan1967 04:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Nor should the vote be cast solely to be contrary. RickK 00:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm not here to be contrary. I'm here to make Wikipedia better. Megan1967 02:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appearing in three network programs is plenty notable. Gamaliel 07:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well known, part of one of Guiding Light's only supercouples. Just because you don't watch soaps doesn't mean these people aren't famous. Mike H 10:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly keep, as a notable actor. - Vague | Rant 10:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've done a slight rewrite of the article, showing notability (nominated for four Soap Opera Digest Awards and one Daytime Emmy, supercouple history with Kim Zimmer). Mike H 10:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Vanity" doesn't mean "I'm clueless" - it means he or a close associate put the article there - David Gerard 22:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please be civil, Brookie is only trying to improve Wikipedia. And note that the article was rewritten between the nomination and your comment. Radiant! 12:24, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Personally, the article established sufficient notability even then. Mike H 21:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - Either way, David's personal attack on Brookie was uncalled for, as per the policy on Civility. Radiant! 10:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 07:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. jni 08:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oil and Natural Gas Commission

Well...I truly didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I believe this should be deleted, since it seems to fall under the total gibberish category. --CDN99 19:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - complete nonsense Brookie 19:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speedy. Lacrimosus 19:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shoot me if this is presumptious, but having discovered that this was for some time the name of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, a major Indian energy company, I made this page a redirect to there. I wasn't able to save any of the current content, alas, but you never know... Mattley 20:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep the redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 20:39, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect is good. The original was some pile of irrelevent frothing weirdness. Average Earthman 20:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Mattley's redirect. Barno 00:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep Redirect. Megan1967 04:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ARC Story

Created by anon IP 207.157.73.75 (talk · contributions), who only minutes earlier engaged in vandalism [42] [43] [44]. Related to Dan Bullard, which is itself the subject of a VfD. Non-notable story by non-notable author. -- Curps 19:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Works in progress aren't yet notable. Need to have major news coverage or famous author to be notable if finished. Just a another story. I've seen thausands of them. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 20:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not-notable enough. Maybe later. Zzyzx11 23:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, delete the Dan Bullard page as well Wikipedian231 15:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Book has to be finished, published, and become well known first. Then we'll be looking forward to the article! HyperZonk 17:56, Feb 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. dbenbenn | talk 22:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pre-gauge

"The term pre-gauge was coined in Lowell, Massachusetts in early 2005 by members of Outlet magazine." Wolfman 20:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is actual slang that is used in the area. I'm not trying to promote anything except its further usage. MarkHenderson 15:00, 15 Feb 2005 (EST)

yes, that's the problem. you wrote it to promote it, not because it was already notable. Wolfman 20:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: MarkHenderson has made only 13 edits, all to Pre-gauge and this pgae. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I moved to Lowell in September and have heard the term pre-gauge many times. I have also read about in many underground publications. MattStudivan 15:27, 15 Feb 2005 (EST)

Above entry was by User:24.128.58.201 [45]. No user registered as "MattStudivan". JoaoRicardo 20:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just because a term exists doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Delete as a non-notable local phenomenon. — Ливай | ☺ 20:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Also note that Wikipedia is not a means of promoting any idea but only describing them. — Ливай | ☺ 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. I have several friends in Lowell and have never heard this term. This must be unique to a younger age group. Carrp | Talk 20:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 20:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable enough to me.--Billoday 20:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This is the only edit from this user and is thus quite probably a sock puppet. — Ливай | ☺ 21:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - How does that follow? Please don't throw random accusations at new users. RSpeer 01:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  - What do I need to do to show that I'm not a sock puppet? I've used wikipedia for a long time as a resource, I just don't usually see something I can improve on. This entry seems to be fairly notable (by nature of its content), I have heard it used by people I know from the area, and it shouldn't be deleted simply because it is unique to a certain age group. Many things are unique to certain age groups, should we not comment on a large number of age-specific sociological functions? Or only the age-specific in certain regions? Where do we draw the line?--Billoday 22:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - It is difficult to prove that you're not a sockpuppet when you have only two edits, both on this VfD. You have every right to state your opinion, with the understanding that the admin tallying this VfD may choose to place less weight on your vote. It's not always that easy to figure out where to draw the line when it comes to notibility. In general, something that is notable only to a portion of an age group in one city is not notable. If it starts to catch on, perhaps it will become notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Carrp | Talk 22:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My friends in Lowell use this term, I've heard it. if a term exists- it definately should be included. we should all be so lucky as to "exist". This is about discovering new linguistic novelties. This is how the modern lexicon will be formed. who are we to stand in the way.

Note: This vote is User:TheDuchess' sole edit. Niteowlneils 21:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia's purpose is not to describe everything that exists. That's why Wikipedia:Votes for deletion exists, after all. We have standards on what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and a term made up by a people at some magazine just isn't notable enough. — Ливай | ☺ 21:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Of the relatively few google hits for this term, none of the first ten are for this meaning. Niteowlneils 21:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It astounds me how well known this term is to all these new voters who just happened to stop by -- given that the term has existed for at most 45 days according to the article. Wolfman 00:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is real, this is used. I felt it was my duty to include this term since I believe in this wikipedia's purpose. Why not compromise and include the other definition that you saw and we can have ourselves a quality wiki entry? MarkHenderson

Delete Complete vanity nonsense. Remind me never to read Outlet magazine, nor to visit any Mexican restaurant frequented by the staff. Johntex 02:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strong DELETE. *sniff* *sniff* Smells like crypto-advertising to me. So, is the magazine for those who like to shop at outlets or for people with electric receptacle fetishes? HyperZonk 17:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A term that has only been used in one town for a few weeks is not notable enough for Wikipedia. sjorford →•← 22:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. No evidence presented of use outside a very small circle. Lowell Sun: "Search For : pre-gauge Between Dates : 2/2/2005 and 2/16/2005 There Were No Articles Retrieved For This Query." Boston Globe and Boston Herald, search over the last ten years: "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." When it is mentioned in the Lowell Sun, come back and try again. With a proper source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) P. S. Google News retrieves a Feb. 10th article in the Globe about a session at the Revolving Museum called "Ain't Valentine's Day" which featured stories by Matt Studivan from Outlet magazine. The word "pre-gauge" is not mentioned. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson

Not notable Brookie 20:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Beavis and Butt-head. Carrp | Talk 20:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Mr. Anderson" is one of the 9 Beavis and Butthead cartoon characters that have their own separate articles. There are many cartoon characters in Wikipedia, from the Simpsons characters, to the King of the Hill characters, to the Looney Tunes characters, that have their own separate articles. Zzyzx11 22:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Agree with Zzyzx11, this is also too large to merge into the B&B article. —RaD Man (talk) 02:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ambiguous title; I had assumed upon seeing it that it was yet another Matrix reference. Ought to be Mr. Anderson (Beavis and Butt-head) or something similar. Rename and keep. -Sean Curtin 02:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I second that - or at least The Matrix should me mentioned in the article, for disambig purposes. No vote otherwise. Radiant! 08:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- No vote; I don't know enough about Beaviscruft. Pending the outcome of of this VfD, I have added a disambig notice to the article for people looking for the character from The Matrix. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
would make a lovely subpage to beavis & butthead. but since that's not allowed (why?) rename it & keep per sean Wolfman 03:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per my previous votes on Beavis and Butt-head characters. Megan1967 04:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to a list of characters on Beavis and Butthead. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to List of dudes in Beavis and Butthead (and disambig) or keep (and disambig). Kappa 09:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and disambiguate. Grue 18:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguate. ComCat 02:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and disambiguate. Stereotek 12:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and disambiguate. --Leadingbrand 11:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 07:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 22:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Locally modified software

Not notable rubbish Brookie 20:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete I don't think it's complete rubbish, but it is definitely no more than dicdef - only 41 google hits. Johntex 02:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 07:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Internationalization_and_localization. vlad_mv 20:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, semms notable enough. JamesBurns 07:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete; nothing worthwhile to merge. —Korath (Talk) 02:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sigrity and Sigrity'

Advertisement. Wikipedia is not a billboard. — Ливай | ☺ 20:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertising Dabbler 20:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete They could've at least made an attempt to make it encyclopedic. – flamurai (t) 20:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Get rid of this obvious ad as soon as possible! Zzyzx11 22:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttals to the cosmological argument

Death to all POV forks must be applied irrespective of the author's merit and irrespective of the history of the article. Just stacking more pastel shaded boxes in front of the article doesn't help. Either transwiki to WikiBooks/Theology or dump into Talk:Cosmological argument for merciless editing. --Pjacobi 20:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

weak keep. I agree this needs heavy editing to improve the tone and POVness of it, however I feel that this can be done. On whether this is best presented as a separate article or as part of cosmological argument I'm neutral, but the subject matter is worthy of inclusion somewhere imho. Thryduulf 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If an article is too long and needs to be forked, it should not be done according to POV but by topic. — Ливай | ☺ 21:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An inherently POV fork. By the way, this kind of article is what the Toomanyboxes template was made for (the template can be found on this BJAODN page). Szyslak 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have unknowingly done what this template would have asked for this article, having wikified and removed the {{wikify}} box! Thryduulf 21:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. An editor has apparently moved some ancient Larry Sanger text that was on Talk:Cosmological argument to a separate article. The reason this text was long ago moved to the Talk page in the first place is that despite Sanger's public posturing about the low quality and anti-elitism of Wikipedia (he presumably being part of the elite to which Wikipedia is anti-), Sanger's writing was never very good. Often it was just disconnected lecture notes, as in this case. Further, it doesn't make sense to have this text in a separate article. The rebuttals for the cosmological argument should be in the article itself, and indeed there are rebuttals there already. It is hard to see what this editor was up to, but it doesn't make sense. It is too bad that it takes 5 days to undo dumb moves like this, but in this case it has taken five months for it to be nominated so a few more days isn't going to do any harm. --BM 22:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed w/ BM. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge what can be salvaged and redirect to cosmological argument, and possibly transwiki the rest to Wikibooks. Essay. — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge what can be salvaged into cosmological argument and delete. Do not redirect. Nobody is going to be looking for an entry called "Rebuttals to the cosmological argument." Death to POV breakouts. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: You know "merge and delete" is an invalid vote. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - You might be thinking about "redirect and delete," which wouldn't be invalid, just contradictory. Szyslak 09:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - No, it is not an invalid vote. This has been gone over time and time again. There seems to be an urban legend that a merge-and-delete can't be achieved without violating GFDL. The truth is that a GFDL-kosher merge-and-delete can be done fairly easily if the merged material is the product of a single contributor (all that is needed is proper attribution with a suitable comment in the Talk page of the merged article), and rather more laboriously if it has a complex history (by merging histories, which can be performed by any sysop). Dpbsmith (talk) 14:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 07:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - original research, POV fork - David Gerard 23:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. JamesBurns 07:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mihael Milunovic

This is a short biography in broken English of a non-notable person, written by a single editor -- probably Michael Milunovic himself. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:39, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Brookie 20:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Zzyzx11 23:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arg. Delete --Dbroadwell 04:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 02:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

John David Crow

Not notable Brookie 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Currently, Wikipedia has separate articles for a majority of the Heisman Trophy winners. Zzyzx11 23:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment -- At the very least, we should mark it as a sports-related stub. Zzyzx11 23:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Extremely notable. Keep and expand. Rick K 23:25, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Guy won a Heisman, and it's not like '57 is all that far back. There should still be enough info about him out there to make a decent entry. Stub, sure, but shouldn't be deleted. – Beginning 02:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
keep Wolfman 06:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Expand, and Wikify. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Apart from his stellar college career, played in 4 Pro Bowls. Notable NFL player. [46] Capitalistroadster 10:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alex Weiss

Author of a few hobbyist books with no real notability beyond being User:Squiquifox's dad. A.D.H. (t&m) 20:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not significantly notable. Zzyzx11 23:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. More interesting than my dad... but not notable enough for a wikipedia article all the same.
Delete --nixie 02:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, borderline notable for me. Megan1967 04:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, even though he has visited over 50 countries. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 17:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tirrany

Hoax/prank created by Alun Sheera (talk · contributions), whose first acts were to de-redlink his/her user and talk pages and then jump straight into creation of RfCs against non-existent users by cutting and pasting from other RfCs. Probably should be speedied. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Varius.

Speedy as vandalism/trolling --Carnildo 20:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. It's troll-tastic! – Beginning 02:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. It's a re-creation of a rejected RfAr by CheeseDreams, complete with the original comments by the Epopt and yours truly. Sockpuppetry in action? --Calton 05:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, quite, and I've marked it as such. —Korath (Talk) 06:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
And it is gone. Speedily Deleted as vandalism. SWAdair | Talk 11:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 06:07, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Varius

Hoax/prank created by Alun Sheera (talk · contributions), whose first acts were to de-redlink his/her user and talk pages and then jump straight into creation of RfCs against non-existent users by cutting and pasting from other RfCs. Probably should be speedied. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tirrany.

Speedy as vandalism/trolling --Carnildo 20:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to delete this right away. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Airline Passengers for Safer Skies

Non-notable; a whopping 32 Google hits. Szyslak 20:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable to be in Wikipedia yet. "Little has been written about the group" says it all. In time, maybe. But not now. Zzyzx11 23:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete unable to find anything beyond the Michelle Malkin reference. it wouldn't shock me if they don't even exist. Wolfman 01:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. —Korath (Talk) 02:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 02:16, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Roberto Weiss

~~While probably a very good UCL professor, his own grandson was unable to write enough about him to expand the article beyond a stub. A.D.H. (t&m) 21:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)~~ Contrary to my expectations, this article has been expanded into a brief but informative biography. In light of this, and given current consensus, I'm removing the VFD notice. A.D.H. (t&m) 19:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Roberto Weiss was an important scholar who published several influential books and many articles on the renaissance and humanism. He was a member of numerous academies and held the professorhip of Italian at UCL for 23 years. Have you tried searching for information on Weiss before making this nomination? / u p p l a n d 22:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There are thousands of university professors and even more published academics—my own family is not without its share—and these accomplishments do not automatically imply encyclopedic notability. The article, a series of single-sentence factoids, is "fluffed" to begin with, and yet still does not exceed a single paragraph. A.D.H. (t&m) 22:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - The current policy on academics on Wikipedia is the professor test: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included". Roberto Weiss clearly meets that requirement. / u p p l a n d 14:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - This is not current policy. Please read the linked page you cite. It is a proposal. It has never received consensus. Please do not attempt "proof by repeated assertion." And it is not not a test "for academics," but one proposed measure of notability for inclusion of any biography. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      - Fine, it is not current policy then, but is the best we have until people agree on something. A policy is needed. Judging the notability of academics by voting in each case is difficult and puts them at a disadvantage compared to pop-culture celebrities and sportspeople (and slashdot trolls, for that matter). / u p p l a n d 16:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        That's true, but this isn't the forum for discussing it. I suppose Wikipedia:Village pump would be the best place to raise it and start a discussion. Let me know if you do. Mattley 17:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
very weak keep. Borderline for sure but the article is nicely done (overlinked, though). Search on "The Renaissance discovery of classical antiquity" yields 180 hits, virtually all relevant. The book is in print, in a paperback edition that Amazon can ship within a couple of days, but only has a sales rank of 1,216,577 (my personal rule-of-thumb is the rank should be higher than 200,000). The John Buchan connection is mildly interesting. www.abebooks.com turns up 31 used copies books by him; interestingly enough there are many other titles besides "The Renaissance discovery of classical antiquity." My local public library doesn't have any books by him but the local library interloan network has "Humanism In England During The Fifteenth Century." and "The spread of Italian" humanism. I'm being inconsistent because I've voted to delete roughly comparable academics, but, hey, Ralph Waldo Emerson, right? I think I'm being swayed by the snapshot. Note that if the article is voted for deletion, this would be very appropriate material for User:Squiquifox's user page—and Wikipedia user pages are indexed by Google. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not especially keen on people writing articles on family members but this man seems more than significant enough for inclusion. It is a specialised field but he seems to have been a very big contributor, with books still in print and widely referenced on university reading lists, and collections established by him in use at several institutions. Note, incidentally, that a Professor at a university in the United Kingdom is what Americans would call a full professor. Mattley 00:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think the fact it was written by his grandson is actually relevant, the article should improve with expansion and some rewording to remove POV. --nixie 02:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, though it's rather bad form to write about one's family. James F. (talk) 02:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand, notable. Megan1967 04:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable scholar in his field. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Warthog Jump

Not Notable Brookie 21:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Halo: Combat Evolved. Zzyzx11 23:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Halo: Combat Evolved or maybe Machinima or Red vs Blue. Johntex 02:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useable to Halo: Combat Evolved, and add redirect. Megan1967 04:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable virtual car flipping. Nothing worthwhile to merge. —Korath (Talk) 07:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Halo: Combat Evolved. JamesBurns 07:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 02:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Without Face

Not Notable Brookie 21:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. To the person who first created this article: Wikipedia is not a place to just post your band's name and web site. A band who is eligible to be in Wikipedia is one that is notable e.g. has won major awards and/or sold a number of albums. Zzyzx11 23:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As much as I love my Hungarian progressive metal (or whatever it was), I'm agreeing with Zzyzx11. – Beginning 02:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I've expanded the article since nomination. Megan1967 04:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still delete.The band still isn't notable -even thought we've got a nice picture and a bit more bumf. --Brookie 08:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Meet Wikimusic guidelines for music groups with at least rwo albums. All Music Guide has a detailed bio. [47]

Have performed at least one European tour.Well done Megan1967. Capitalistroadster 11:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Seems notable enough. Xezbeth 16:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, internationally success, clears wikimusic guidelines, and thank you Megan. Kappa 17:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is a working, original project with listeners. Bands need not have won "major awards" to have articles in WP. Wyss 20:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Internationally successful prog-metal band. — Gwalla | Talk 23:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I fear - David Gerard 23:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 07:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Drabble

This is extremely unencyclopedic, and fails to even explain what the hell this "myth" is. -- Cabhan 21:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete this one, but there is a somewhat notable comic strip called Drabble. By the way, I think it's safe to say any article with its author's signature on it is an easy candidate for deletion. Szyslak 21:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and recreate about the comic strip. RickK 21:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  - Interestingly enough there are 'two' comic strips with that name; the other is about leprechauns in yellow hats, and has been physically published in three or four albums. Dupuis iirc. Radiant! 08:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Author fails to mention the real and famous Margaret Drabble, which does not bode well for this thing's authenticity. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw some of the above, as the word seems to be in widespread usage, despite its dubious origins. DJ Clayworth 04:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- I suggest that we should expand the article to only include information about the comic strip -- maybe write a short stub for now. A definition of the word "Drabble" is not needed in Wikipedia because it's in wiktionary.org and other dictionary web sites. As for the "myth" part, I'll need to see more references than that. Zzyzx11 22:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep None of reasons cited fit in criteria specified in deletion policy. Article is more than dictionary definition, but does reference definition on wiktionary.org. Article refers to comic strip as well as myth. Article does refer to the living author Margaret Drabble (early versions linked to her biography, it now links to her wikipedia article).Stephenboothuk 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete and recreate article about the comic strip. A.D.H. (t&m) 04:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Clean up. If anything this needs to be expanded. Although it may have started from an urban myth, googling shows that there are "Drabbles" written. With a few sites devoted to them. And it seems they are a common challange on writer's sites.
Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 07:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 12:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vianism

Non-notable religion. Only 6 Google hits. Perhaps a hoax, but if not, very obscure. The anonymous author has also put several links to the article in Atheism, Humanism, and several other articles. --BM 21:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not a notable religion, and possibly a hoax. --BM 21:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is not notable enough. Zzyzx11 22:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe it's actually vainism, and that's why they're pimping it around. – Beginning 02:42, Feb 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. jni 12:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wind of the West

No record at imdb, no Google hits. Premiered to family and friends. See also Danny Janda. Rick K 22:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity page. -Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 22:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No Google, no IMDB, then no Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 00:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with above. Johntex 02:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Danny Janda

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Wind of the West. Non-notable, article in first person. Rick K 22:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity page. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 22:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just another vanity article that makes me sigh and ask "Who bloody cares?" Zzyzx11 00:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - Jpo 01:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Useless waste of electrons. Johntex 02:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 14:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Advanced Office Password Recovery

Blatant ad for a non-encyclopedic software package. Page created by an anon whose only other edit was to add this software package to a list of certain types of software on another page. Katefan0 22:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. I'll deal with it accordingly. Rick K 22:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

There are three other password recovery programs at Wikipedia (l0phtcrack for example). What's wrong with this one ?

As I said above, it's a copyright violation. Unless you own the rights to information at http://www.elcomsoft.com/aopr.html, you can't copy it to Wikipedia. Rick K 22:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and delete any existence of copyvio. With over 45,700 hits on google this passes "the test". [48] GRider\^talk 00:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite. The original author of this article needs to recover his lost or forgotten writing skills on how to avoid copyright violations. Zzyzx11 00:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rewrite and expand, passes Google test. Megan1967 02:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the google test is relevant for this one. The first few pages are all software download sites. The few that I checked did not show it as heavily downloaded nor did the review sites give it particularly high marks. I'm inclined to delete unless stronger evidence can be found. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are the people voting keep aware of the way copyright violations are handled? The article has to be deleted so that the copyright violation is removed from the history. Then the article can be rewritten without the copyvio. There is nothing to vote on until the article has gone through the copyvio procedure. RickK 05:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I can't speak for others, but I was trying to express the opinion that whether or not it is deleted as a copyvio, the topic does not appear to meet our generally accepted standards of inclusion and that, therefore, no one should waste their time writing a non-copyvio version. Rossami
Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 08:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 12:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yulay

Just a foreign name. Deb 22:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not a reference for transliterations. Zzyzx11 00:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - Jpo 01:14, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Zzyzx11. Johntex 02:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, geneaology, article as it stands is un-encycloapedic. Megan1967 02:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sure it's not "foreign" in whatever country it comes from, but this isn't encyclopedia-worthy. – Beginning 02:37, Feb 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 KEEP

Jeff McBride

Appears to be vanity. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Google on '"Jeff McBride" magic' gets 21,500 hits all the early ones of which look relevant. He tours internationally in fairly prestigious venues and has made three DVDs which seem to be sold fairly widely in magic establishments. Maybe not in the very top rank of magicians, but I'd say pretty notable. TSP 00:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite Wave your magic wand and turn this vanity-filled, self-promotion into a notable, informative article. Zzyzx11 00:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep and rewrite. Seems fairly notable, but nothing's making me feel like we absolutely have to retain this. – Beginning 02:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs rewrite and expansion, borderline notable for me. Megan1967 04:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I was a practicing magician for a time, and while McBride is no David Copperfield or Doug Henning, he is fairly noteworthy as magicians go. If nobody beats me to it, I'll attempt a rewrite at some point this week. Shimeru 10:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite in proper American English. A.D.H. (t&m) 04:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 12:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shaun shahram shasha Navazesh

Artisan Baker, Pastry chef, consultant, Founder President and Chairman of ABQA (Artisan Bakers Quality Alliance), Chairman of Advanced Baking curriculum at George Brown City College 2003, lecturer and teacher from 2001, premier award nominee 2003, ShaSha is a well-traveled man who brought his knowledge and experience about food and baking to Canada.

His love for food and passion for baking led him to marry his knowledge and expertise with skills and techniques he learned at George Brown College.

His early teachers – his mother and grandmother, who always made "happy" food, inspired his appreciation for tasty and healthy food. "Happy" food is food made with love, happiness and wholesome, all natural, organic ingredients.

He’s grateful to his family and friends who have supported him and to those who trusted him and gave him the room to experiment and expand his creativity.

This proud Canadian is now owner, artisan baker of ShaSha Bread Co. where there is an amiable alchemy at work creating organic, sourdough, gourmet bread.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 12:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abhishek

Vanity page. Katefan0 23:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. Note that the anon who created the page removed the VfD notice. Johntex 02:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete the vanity, Delete the vanity. --Dbroadwell 04:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no question about it. Arunram 06:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 20:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete!. I don't care if it's deleted by Speedy Deletion or by VfD...I want it out of Wikipedia! :) --Neigel von Teighen 20:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as vandalism. Not only did the anon remove the notices, he expanded the entry! - Lucky 6.9 22:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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