Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 1

June 1

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.mikka (t) 04:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ian(n) Andrew Marten

Sounds like a decent guy and may yet grace these pages. However, for now, vanity. Denni☯ 00:15, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. Crap. — Phil Welch 00:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Note Worthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not Crap. Notable. Ianblair23 0:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs some fixing up tho. ---Rickk 0:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above votes invalidly added by User:67.150.45.32. Radiant_* 09:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete(e). Vanity, unverifiable, vote vandalism. He is a highly respected political speaker in Wisconsin ... at 17 years old. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough to me -CunningLinguist 02:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Care to elaborate? (In other words, do you know something we don't?) AFAICT, this is run-of-the-mill high school vanity. The only fact I've been able to verify is that there is a student named Ian Marten that ran in some track meets for Cedarburg High. Subject's political activism is unverified and very probably unverifiable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep votes boggle the mind on this one. Quale 05:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, at least not yet. Sjakkalle 06:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete votes boggle the mind on this one. Quale 05:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, now and forever. Sjakkalle 06:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and wikify. Excellent example of heroism. MathKnight 09:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I saw a local newscast about this kid a week or so ago. No reason why wikipedia shouldn't get a jump on the lads page. Does need some wikification however. -SmarterChild3 09:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above votes invalidly added by User:67.150.45.32. Radiant_* 09:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete as WP:VAIN, not to mention WP:SOCK. Radiant_* 09:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's worse than sockpuppetry, this is vandalism, voting under someone elses name. Sjakkalle 09:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. What's with the name "Ian(n)", anyway? Did his parents want to use a weird name or something? — JIP | Talk 11:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and block sockpuppet/vandal IP. Adding fake votes under real Wikipedians' names is truly horrible behaviour and must not be tolerated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind — JIP | Talk 13:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, block the sock, and go straight to Wiki-Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Jamyskis 13:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete the article for patent vanity. Send the author to his room without supper for misbehaving. --Xcali 14:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's vanity.--Kristjan Wager 17:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Before Written - the subject is sixteen going on senility with a masters in acting out. Fabartus 22:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. The "is a romantic" part alone seals it... ;) --Etacar11 22:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the vanity, and send the socks to Wiki-Hell!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 04:22, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE mikka (t) 04:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Toddy Lee

Non-notable. I quote, from the article: This is the only song by this artist to have any sort of regional popularity, and not much was heard from him after this --Nabla 00:16, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. Crap. — Phil Welch 00:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently notable as an pioneer in West Coast hip hop but this particular strange article is not. It seems to be an excerpt from a conversation I'm not interested in. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn Xcali 14:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete mikka (t) 04:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gladys Warhol

I don't know whether Tubgirl is notable (and I don't care)- but I doubt anyone will search for her as googleless 'Gladys' --Doc (?) 00:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete almost certainly an attack, and on the 0.00001% chance that it's true, would still be not-notable and unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like the article is now tagged as speedy delete since the original author blanked the page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that the article has been restored, delete as it is an attack page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, probable attack page. (At least I don't want to be tasked with verifying this.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:53, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Android79. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. --Xcali 14:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since we have a consensus that this is an attack page - can it be speedied for the sake of the victim?? --Doc (?) 15:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable references yet presented. Likely attack page, therefore untrue, therefore vandalism, therefore a valid candidate for speedy deletion. So I've speedy-deleted it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete mikka (t) 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Left handed catcher's mitt

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Denni☯ 00:43, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with User:Denni. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to mitt? Radiant_* 09:27, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 14:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "Something that sounds real but isn't". Redirect to hoax? Mgm|^(talk) 15:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as slang dicdef, without redirecting to hoax. I thought this article was about catchers' mitts in baseball! --Idont Havaname 19:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wasting our time (WOT) Fabartus 22:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 10:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Wright

Suspect body, links are both bad, no Google hit for book. Gee, could this be vandalism? Vote now and vote often. Denni☯ 00:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with Denni. Sjakkalle 06:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Wright Stuff. (Matthew Wright is also the name of a minor British TV personality). Proto 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Proto. Hiding 12:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 14:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Proto.--Kristjan Wager 17:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect An eventual article about the journalist would also be good. The JPS 22:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Wright Stuff. JamesBurns 10:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete mikka (t) 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nemorga

RPGcruft. 141 Google hits. Denni☯ 01:01, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete single sentence orphan that does not make clear what it is about. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Xcali 14:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• (speedy) delete. contextless RPGcruft. Mgm|^(talk) 15:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under speedy delete criteria #1 for articles. --Carnildo 21:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No speedy, this isn't nonsense. Delete as unencyclopedic, minor RPG figure. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete mikka (t) 04:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moral invertebrate

transwikied dicdef - wonderful phrase - not encyclopedic --Doc (?) 01:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ooh, I like that one. Since it's already been transwikied, Delete. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since already transwikied. --bainer (talk) 02:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, can't be expanded/already transwikified. Mgm|^(talk) 15:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Brilliant phrase, though. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 10:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect mikka (t) 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pole-position

Dicdef. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Denni☯ 01:15, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Redirected. Gazpacho 01:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frikken Chicken

I can't verify that this band exists. Its first album supposedly was Greatest Hits. Gazpacho 01:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 5 steps to a band vanity article, for maximum unverifiability:

1. Band members known only by given names or pseudonyms – check.
2. Vague band formation date – check.
3. "Production problems" with albums, which are self-released, though it's never stated that they are – check.
4. Band plans to do some touring or some recording or something, sometime in the near, or possibly distant, future – check.
5. General air of mysteriousness – check.

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity. Funny, they have had three albums but for some reason could not be released. Seriously, though, good luck kids. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. Funny vanity though: "what is considered their second album was also never released effectively, due to some minor police infractions." --bainer (talk) 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (love psychedelico's first album mightve been greatest hits, but love psychedelico these guys ain't) Nateji77 12:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Either non-notable vanity or fiction. -- Infrogmation 14:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Android. Vanity. Unverifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 15:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm from the band. I'm Jay-Funk, aka Jared Norman. I'd like to say that we do exist and that we did not make this entry... or at least the three members I'm with didn't, our drummer might have, but we don't think so because the article is too inaccurate. It's innacurate to the point that it couldn't have been us. We'll try and fix it up to be more accurate when we have time.

• If the band can fix it up so it is accurate, it might be worth saving, otherwise - delete.--Kristjan Wager 16:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Delete even if it's accurate, the band is still nowhere close to notable (WP:MUSIC). Seenyer 20:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Wow. "formed in the late part of 2004", yet they already have three albums? Delete, vanity. RickK 22:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. I like the name though. --Etacar11 23:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jay-Funk here again. It's up to you whether you see deletion as necessary, I don't really mind either way, but this wasn't made by us, I spoke to the drummer and everyone close to the band. Anyways, we have a bit of a cult following around here. I'll make the article acccurate and add some stuff within the next 24 hours, then you guys go ahead and do as you see fit.

• "Albums are hard to find"; "ask the right people in Victoria" for an album...delete. humblefool® 03:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Dr. Kaine here, Jay-Funk is a dumbcrap, he wrote the orriginal, just check the IPs (though he's still lying about it ATM). Go ahead and delete us as we probably don't belong on wikipedia.

• Ok, Jay-Funk here, I've established it was my brother, and he was adding stuff too. He's stupid, anyway. Go ahead and delete. It was fun while I thought someone cared about us here.
• Im Tristan im not in the band but im here to say that they really are a band!!! There are many people petitioning to keep this entry, so please do not delete

• I'm sure they are a band, and hey, how can you not like a band with a name like Frikken Chicken, but maybe when they've put out a greatest hits album-oh, right...okay, at the very least they could have a song that's been heard outside of Victoria. Anyway, I'm sure they rock, but for now, delete. -- StopTheFiling 10:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sean Verret

I wish my life was as interesting, but still vanity. Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Hoary 06:23, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Delete Nateji77 12:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 15:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for mis-spelling researher. -- BD2412 ^talk 06:28, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 03:12 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Who? Not notable! Vanity! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shoagi

Two Google hits, none related to the text here. Proably hoax. Denni☯ 01:37, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. Possibly about some sort of game character but article does not say what it is. Also reads like a copyvio. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a figment of someone's imagination. Xcali 15:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. -- Eagle^amn 15:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete {{Nonsense}} or fiction -- the last line even says so: "Thus far, this is the only documentation of Shoagi existence." Fabartus 22:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 03:11 June 3, 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fanfiction.net timeline

The content of this article is duplicated in the Fan fiction article, and should only be in one place. (Perhaps where it really belongs is in the article on Fanfiction.net?) *Dan* 01:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• We need to preserve the edit history if it's merged, the rest of the page should NOT be deleted, but redirected. Mgm|^(talk) 16:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

---

• Merge (without redirect) to Fanfiction.net, but only the things that are useful/remotely interesting to anyone except devotees of the site's mailing list. "On June 23, Cassandra Claire's supporters react with a certain degree of rage on various mailing lists and message boards. Other fan fiction communities go 'Huh? What's going on?' " This sort of stuff is useless. --bainer (talk) 02:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This reads as violently POV. If it is going to be kept in any way, I request a thorough going-over with the NPOV brush. That said, FF.N is a recognised phenomenon, and perhaps its history is worthy of record. --Simon Cursitor 07:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Fanfiction.net, this is mistitled but a number of the legal issues here are interesting. Radiant_* 09:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Selectively Merge into the Fanfiction.net article. Most of it is pretty non-notable (users getting banned, categories getting deleted, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Purge and merge, fancraftcruft. the wub (talk) 14:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge selectively as per Starblind. Some of this would improve the parent article; much, however, is clear vanity. --InShaneee 15:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to fanfiction.net and let the editors who know about it sort out the neutrality issue. I was around there at the time of the Cassandra Claire incident and it should be included in the timeline in some form as it was the first major plagiarism case there. Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe a job for EasyTimeline? Mgm|^(talk) 16:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Fanfiction.net. Almafeta 18:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Fanfiction.net. There is some valid information here that would benefit the original article after some improvement. MegaSlicer 23:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, which pretty much has been done, which means Delete. Ambush Commander 21:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was this article was Speedy Deleted at 16:04, 1 Jun 2005 UTC by MacGyverMagic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Speedy this? I think not! Take a bow, gang! (Oh, and delete). Denni☯ 02:01, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Enshrine somewhere before deletion. An interesting way to say thanks. A better way would be to return the favor and contribute stuff :-) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but endorse the sentiment. --Simon Cursitor 07:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep somewhere, somehow - someone be creative and think where!--Doc (?) 08:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Would BJAODN do? Proto 11:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• You're welcome but also delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This content is speedy-able as an attempt to correspond. If someone were to write an actual article about the practice of thanking as part of etiquette and its role in various cultures, I might vote to keep. Meelar (talk) 13:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree it may be speedy deleted. If someone wishes to copy it to the latest BJAODN, go ahead. -- Infrogmation 14:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Copied to Village Pump since I love the idea of the message. Radiant_* 14:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Article author: "so just go on and delete this". It's copied and preserved. Now it can be speedied. Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - moved - SimonP 23:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Johan

vanity, non-notable Josh Parris ✉ 02:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed with Josh parris on vanity. The name "Johan" however is variation of "John", so I would support a redirect to John. Sjakkalle 06:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir per Sjakalle. English is about the only language that abbreviates names of classical figures, so people could plausibly look for Johan (or Johannes) when searching for biblical figure John. Radiant_* 14:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• What if it was transferred to Johan Andersson? TheSeez
• Move to Johan Andersson Fornadan (t) 00:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Johan Andersson. Also I disagree with being non-notable, Johan is quite well-known among people who follow game design. --King of Men 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move the NPOV bits to Johan Andersson or Paradox Interactive, then redirect to John per Sjakkalle. -- Grev -- Talk 03:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Johan Andersson or incorporate into Paradox Interactive. He's the head programmer of an established gaming company, and he has a semi-cult status among the fans of Paradox' games – Rafiki ^(talk) 06:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Johan sucks teh horsecock, in addition Wiki rules say that personal tribute pages are not allowed, as Johan is only a half-wit programmer at a fourth rate games company, he does not warrent a page. - Kyu
  • (comment left by Kyujuni (talk · contribs) Anilocra 14:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Kyu, besides, the Johan Anderssen is already taken
  • (unsigned comment left by 213.240.6.195 (talk · contribs)) Anilocra 14:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It was not taken when the move was suggested. In fact, what's there now may quickly end up on the VfD. Further, it was created by this anonymous user, probably to block such a move from being carried out if that's what's decided. -- Grev -- Talk 15:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keep it. Lead programmer and game designer. Well known in appropriate circles. Similiar to Will Wright/Sid Meir. ~ Duuk

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

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

Alda Ribiero Acosta, Vladimir Roslik

Can someone verify this? Revolución 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• These should be seperate entries. Delete Alda Ribiero Acosta as unverifiable, I can find nothing on her. Keep Vladimir Roslik, many confirming articles and websites. -- Infrogmation 14:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Vladimir see [1] delete Alda. BTW, there is no vfd notice on the Roslik article. Capitalistroadster 00:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted, but should someday redirect to an article at lethargy. - SimonP 23:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lethargic

Nothing but a single-sentence (and grammatically incorrect) dicdef. Firebug 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect to Lethargy, which redirects to Fatigue. Revolución 02:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• How about we avoid the double-redir and go directly to Fatigue (do not pass Go, do not collect $200)? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Neither lethargic nor lethargy should redirect to fatigue. Kappa 07:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: They should until someone makes a lethargy page. Proto 11:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy ok. Poor attempt at dicdef. Agree with Kappa that lethargy and lethargic should NOT redirect to fatigue. -- Infrogmation 14:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete is 'adjective - belongs to dictionary side. iirc, some guide explicitly mentoned to not use adjectives as arty topics. Fabartus 19:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The "some guide" is the Wikipedia:naming conventions (adjectives), which also recommends that adjectives be redirects to nouns. Kappa is right, although I don't know whether for the right reason. lethargic and lethargy should not redirect to fatigue. fatigue is a disambiguation article. They should redirect to fatigue (physical), where you will find that someone has already made a lethargy page. Uncle G 22:33, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Delete. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand the difference between the noun lethargy and the adjective lethargic and thinks it's OK to write Wikipedia articles as if they were dictionary definitions. Michael Hardy 21:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Lethargy It would be a good idea if the Lethargy areticle contained info about Lethargy and not redirect to Fatigue. Foant 17:20, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: keep rewritten article. sjorford →•← 12:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zetor

• Delete substub about a "Czech tractor company". If the notability can be established and the article expanded, I'll change my vote. Revolución 02:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The Zetor company does exist, if that's what you are wondering. It was originally Soviet-era farm tractor manufacturer from Czechoslovakia and apparently still sells. See also Zetor North America. That's unfortunately all I can say about it. - Skysmith 10:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's known to be a valid topic, it shouldn't be nominated VfD in the first place. Completed writeup of a small article on this. --Unfocused 12:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfocused, your continuing attacks on comments regarding VfD nominations are not winning you any friends. Neither is your whining on my Talk page. RickK 18:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Struck out personal attacks, refactored using underline. Note: It is not appropriate to characterize sincere attempts to communicate as "whining" and that is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Since you won't respond to your talk page, I'm asking you here to please stop. --Unfocused 18:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Stop attacking the motives of people who make VfD listings, and I'll stop deleting your personal attacks. Look, instead of making the attack comment that I crossed out above, all you had to say was, "My Google count is xxx, which, in my view, makes this topic notable." See the difference? RickK 20:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Struck out accusations. I have not attacked anyone's motives. I will consider your suggestion as helpful; however a Google count is often nearly useless. Reading the first page of Google results, or any one of the first page of hits, should be minimum research before VfD nomination, and I will continue to suggest the same. However, I will try phrase it more gently. I would've rather had this entire conversation on either of our talk pages, I wouldn't have cared which. Please respond when people post complaints on your talk page. --Unfocused 20:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • RickK, your continuing bullshit is not "winning you any friends" OR showing good practices as an admin. --SPUI (talk) 20:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep According to the website, they've been around since 1946. And a tractor company by its very nature is at least a medium-to-large size organisation. Keep and expand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:18, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Keep Medium-to-large sized corporations are notable. JBurnham 14:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good informative article now. Ty Unfocused. Kappa 18:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty of Zetor tractors in use around the world, and it's a very well-known, almost iconic brand -- for example, there's a theme restaurant in Helsinki, Finland that's been named after Zetor tractors. It's tongue-in-cheek, sure, but it's real. (And, uh, the food's pretty good there, too.) -- Captain Disdain 20:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this too please !Yuckfoo 22:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep tractor company with 60 years in existence. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article is in good shape thanks to Unfocused. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zâmin

• Delete Is this notable? Revolución 02:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, possibly not even canonical. Note: Doing a search for this word produced some truly strange unrelated results, like this and this! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - Mustafaa 17:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and probably flat-out wrong. --Carnildo 21:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability. I'm all for keeping Tolkiencruft, but this isn't worth keeping. RickK 23:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, can't recall this character from my Tolkien readings. --Etacar11 23:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Misspelled - redirect to Zamîn DopefishJustin (･∀･) 22:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • ...which is a copyvio from the Encyclopedia of Arda. Argh. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 22:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wtci

• Delete dicdef, already transwikied. Revolución 02:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Here's a common abbvr: del. humblefool® 03:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gren 13:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete qitaana 01:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chad Bench

Not notable. Andrew pmk 02:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted this article just as the VFD notice was being put on it. I still think that it qualifies as a speedy for patent nonsense and vandalism. Academic Challenger 02:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matt m

Not notable. Andrew pmk 02:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete i'd say it was vanity, but the year of birth is circa. Nateji77 12:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page, related to the deleted Oxo (person). Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep important figure in heavy metal circles.
  • Vote made by 217.205.243.160 (talk · contributions)
• Delete attack page. JamesBurns 10:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weisner

• Delete advertising. Revolución 02:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weisner is also the last name of a guy I went to school with who had the same birthday as me, whose younger sister got me grounded one time. delete Lachatdelarue (talk) 03:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not surprisingly, that anecdote is just as informative as the article. "weisner doorknobs" yields only 10 Googles, but "weiser doorknobs", which Google helpfully suggested, yields 167. This might be a misspelling; Abstain pending further research, but I'm guessing this needn't be kept. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Medium-sized companies are notable. (Just expand it to include a couple of more sentences.) JBurnham 14:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Content-free article. --Carnildo 21:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Medium-sized companies are not by default notable. RickK 23:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. qitaana 16:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wavetail

• Delete nonsense. Revolución 02:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nateji77 12:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. Can't make heads or tails of it. :) Mgm|^(talk) 16:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete One line/sentence articles contributed by only one anonymous IP address should be able to be deleted without a discussion taking place, IMHO. --Rebroad 16:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 23:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

V-Mos

• Delete or merge with List of Metroid characters. Revolución 02:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Nateji77 12:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. --Zxcvbnm 00:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vatan

• Delete dicdef, already transwikied. Revolución 02:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Turkish word, not useful as article title. Already transwikified. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 16:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 10:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Twomp

• Delete dicdef. Revolución 02:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neologism? Transwiki if verified, otherwise delete. Mgm|^(talk) 16:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 10:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and hunt down 64.54.58.156 gren 13:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 03:09 June 3, 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 23:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

List of ways Kenny dies

Redundant with Kenny McCormick#Ways Kenny dies. Doesn't need it's own article. Lachatdelarue (talk) 02:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Complete list already at character article, useless as a redirect. Postdlf 02:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kenny McCormick, although there is not really any harm in deleting this. Sjakkalle 06:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no-one is going to search for this rather than the [Kenny McCormick] article --Doc (?) 08:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• LOL! Merge. Radiant_* 11:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I was actually looking for this a while back. Redirect to Kenny McCormick#Ways Kenny dies Jamyskis 13:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This made me totally crack up, though. The best humour is unintentional humour. PS: I hope I don't die from "monster's eating"! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I always knew that intestinse were bad for you. Jamyskis 13:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Move salvagable content to South Park and then delete. JBurnham 14:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kenny McCormick where the complete list is located. If I were to search for this using a "list name" this would be what I'd type. Redirecting to South Park won't help the reader find the correct info in the fastest way IMO. Mgm|^(talk) 16:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and remove from Kenny McCormick, the Kenny McCormick page is getting large. Almafeta 18:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh my God, keep and take out of Kenny!!! You bastards!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 19:35, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• While the Kenny McCormick article is getting too big, this article is way too small. Delete this and split Kenny McCormick. Everything in Kenny McCormick#Ways Kenny dies will be its own article. Nestea 21:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to mention delete Kenny McCormick#Episodes in which Kenny doesn't die, that's just pointless. Nestea 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For reasons described below, delete. But still, clean up Kenny McCormick and delete Kenny McCormick#Episodes in which Kenny doesn't die. Nestea 01:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• First: Kenny McCormick isn't large. For large, see Roman Empire. Second, the reason that Kenny McCormick is the length that it is is because it's terribly written. For example: Why, since Kenny doesn't appear in any but one episode in season 6, does that article include the individual episode titles of every other episode in season 6, twice? Redirect and by making the escape route of growing another article unavailable to them thereby force the editors of Kenny McCormick, who think that that article is so large, to find some ingenious way of making the article shorter whilst not removing content that is actually connected to Kenny McCormick in some way. I'm sure that one will come to mind soon. Uncle G 22:49, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Delete as duplication. The Kenny article isn't that long; removing the list of ways he dies pretty much turns it into a stub. 23skidoo 01:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplication. JamesBurns 10:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge please Yuckfoo 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to Kenny McCormick so that another Wikipedian dosen't accidentally start another redundant iteration of ways Kenny dies, not to mention making redirects out of similar names for articles like this to make this list out of. --SuperDude 23:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable part of popular culture.  Grue  15:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete then redirect this duplicates information in the existing article, so is better deleted, but someone might create the article again, so redirect it to avoid that. Mozzerati 18:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• Redirect back to Kenny McCormick (merge anything that happens to be missing). Kenny McCormick is only 17k--no need to split this off for the forseeable future. Niteowlneils 02:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep the rewrite (nomination withdrawn). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank You Girl

• Delete not notable. Revolución 02:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article has been expanded. Revolución 07:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - thank you and goodnight --Doc (?) 08:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) OK as rewritten --Doc (?) 08:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Was a B-side on a #1 UK single; we couldmerge to the A-side, but it was b/w two different A-sides ("From Me To You" and "Do You Want to Know a Secret"), and that could lead to duplicate content. Nateji77 13:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete substub on barely notable subject. Dunc|☺ 13:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, not brielliant but it'll do. Dunc|☺ 08:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Completely rewritten - try it again now (keep). Grutness...wha? 03:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Vegaswikian 06:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Beatles songs are typically notable enough gren 13:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it currently is. Thryduulf 23:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, come on, it's a B-side! Don't care, Beatles or not.  Grue  15:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 15:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Volker tripp

66 Google hits says non-notable to me. Denni☯ 02:58, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete says it to me, too. --Xcali 15:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Youth involvement

del dicdef. No context. No new semantics beyond what one has by putting meanings of the two words together. mikka (t) 02:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 10:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedied (libel, attack page). jni 12:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Senora Johnson

Non-notable vanity Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Shouldn't this have been speedied? –Hajor 03:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. In fact, this has already been speedied several times and the anon author has been blocked for vandalism. jni 08:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No content, intended as an attack page (see this revision). Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 23:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sunpop

• Delete Is this a real soft drink? Revolución 03:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that this soft drink does exists. It is the generic store brand name for the regional store chains on the East Coast of the USA owned by Royal Ahold. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I currently Abstain on the larger question of whether or not store brands like this one should be merged, kept or deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's real. Giant brand food stores are plentiful around here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Royal Ahold or with the individual chains that use it as a store brand. --Carnildo 21:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Royal Ahold. JamesBurns 10:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Substantiation

• Delete dicdef, already transwikied. Revolución 03:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. mikka (t) 06:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef, already transwikied. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 23:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wintermaul

Gamecruft. Denni☯ 03:04, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Redir Tower Defense. The ______maul family of games are pretty big on Warcraft III servers, but there's about a gajillion different flavors (Mega Man Maul, Simpsons Maul, Halo (video game) Maul just to name a few) and (evidently) they're all variants on Tower Defense anyway. So, what the heck? Redirects are cheap. Marblespire 08:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As far as I know, it was the original (at least a really early one), and a institution in Warcraft III circles, but yes, redirect to Tower Defense. humblefool® 03:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote this article. Wintermaul is the original maul. The reason i havent put this to the section Tower Defense, is that tehre was a topic like wintermaul, and it was empty. Thx for replying to it anyway.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Conrad

• Delete hoax Revolución 03:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Looks like a personal attack. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Joseph Conrad was said to be one of Europe's' most incompetent Generals. Although his 'talents' were never truly put in to practice until he was already well up the military ladder, his peers had expressed concern as to his abilities to lead men in combat. Why or how these reports were overlooked as he rose through the ranks is a mystery

• Weasel wording without sources. Looks like an attack to me. Delete unless notability is verified and neutrality is returned. Mgm|^(talk) 16:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No need for a vote, it's a hoax. The battle described never took place, and Conrad is a fictive person, or at least unknown to Danes. I think the only correct part of the article is that Germany invaded Denmark in 1940. --Kristjan Wager 16:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Did a little more research - even the betallion names are wrong (the betallion numbers/names don't match up).--Kristjan Wager 16:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax/attack page. --Carnildo 21:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree hoax/attack. --Etacar11 23:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 10:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zekican

Can't find evidence of "Zekican" being a real animal. Possible mistranslation from Turkish. Article lacks content, form, proper English. Can't correct due to non-existance of zekican information on the web. Seenyer 03:09, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax. There is no Upper Bellrock in Ankara either. mikka (t) 06:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Mikka. Hoax, possible attack. Mgm|^(talk) 16:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax/nonsense. --Etacar11 00:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 10:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Mihoshi 22:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as above. Kel-nage 22:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 03:05 June 3, 2004 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - SimonP 23:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tanaka of Tokyo

del nonnotable. mikka (t) 05:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikitravel (under Honolulu). Nateji77 12:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikitravel sounds good. Radiant_* 14:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Make sure the edits to this page are compatible with Wikitravel's license first. Mgm|^(talk) 16:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. If they are not, delete. Radiant_>|< 11:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greg Moore (Australian student politician)

Non-notable, possibly vanity. Doesn't meet criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete. Neutrality^talk 05:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 05:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Person is not notable. Cedars 07:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Member of university union boards are not notable unless they achieve notability in some other field.Capitalistroadster 07:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as indicated by User:Capitalistroadster and User:Neutrality. --Idont Havaname 19:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 23:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

UNSW Med Revue

Non-notable. Delete; or, if we're feeling charitable, condense and merge with University of New South Wales. Neutrality^talk 05:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge, per Neutrality. Ambi 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with University of New South Wales. JamesBurns 10:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 23:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

UNSW Revues

Not sufficiently notable as to warrant its own article. Merge with University of New South Wales and delete (and yes, I know about the GFDL provision. Reword if it must be merged). Neutrality^talk 05:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. These shows have a combined audience of over 5,000 annually and hundreds take part in producing them. Some have been running annually for 30 years now. "UNSW revue" also has 6,150 Google hits. I think all that makes it significant enough to have its own article. - Bambul 04:18, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. sjorford →•← 13:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

News_14_Carolina

not encyclopedic. Event is hardly notable outside the few perpetrators on the messageboard. More vainty than anything else 24.211.174.208 06:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the article, in general, as it is a regional station. However, I abstain on whether or not to remove the specific event detailed on that page that the VFD nominator questions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We've got lots of station articles. Don't think this should be any different. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 16:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I did, however, edit out most of the prank info, as I don't think it was notable enough for inclusion. It is now just another station stub. --Scimitar 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major news outlets (AM/FM radio stations, newspapers, and televisions) are automatically notable. Almafeta 18:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment so all cable company local news channels should have their own page? Vegaswikian 06:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, we already have some for more minor stations around the country. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 13:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • But there should be a distinction between broadcast which requires an FCC or other license and soemthing on cable which sdoes not. Vegaswikian 17:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor local channels. Gamaliel 17:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep all minor stations Yuckfoo 21:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I live in the Charlotte area and News 14 Carolina is rather notable here, it is local but if other local news stations are kept, this one should be too. Columbia 02:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ronald johnson

Poor chap, he only lived for one day. I hate to say that he's not notable, but I think this is not verifiable. -- Hoary 06:17, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is uninformative and incorrectly titled. Cedars 07:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiki is not a memorial. --Allen3 ^talk 11:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless there's evidence this sparked a major court case in which case I would vote keep and rename. Mgm|^(talk) 16:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sad, but this is not the place. --Etacar11 00:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete "and his twim" too (iirc). or merge into an arty on Infant Mortality as an example of pre-antibiotic infant health issues. Strikes me as a poem somebody decided to do as an hoax-arty more than anything likely to come to contemporary attention. My four grandparents buried seven kids before they reached the age of four -- thiry years after this setting. Fabartus 00:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wiki not a memorial. -CunningLinguist 02:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 10:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 03:04 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

KellyJ.Wilkinson

Based on contributors username User:Wilkinsonkj and content of article, this article should be userfied. Chiacomo 06:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racusin & Wagner

Not notable. Returns 14 google hits. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:29, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like advertising/self-promotion/vanity. I cannot find anything that verifies how this law firm is noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can show that they're somehow noteworthy. Which I very much doubt. -- Captain Disdain 20:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Physicsforums.com

Speedy delete, nothing to develop Rev Prez 06:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedydelete. Apparently Rev Prez created it and now wants it delted. Sjakkalle 11:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good stub, can't think of a good reason to delete it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa rank of 31,757, but just forums - delete. Dunc|☺ 14:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all but the most notable forums. the wub (talk) 16:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dunc and The wub. Mgm|^(talk) 16:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, as indicated by Sjakkalle. This is listed in WP:CSD. --Idont Havaname 19:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Small world, hmm. I was a major member of this forum from pretty much the beginning, until about last year. Still, I don't think it is terribly notable.--Fangz 03:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. No valid reason to delete. JamesBurns 10:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 03:03 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Primary author wants it gone. --Schulte 05:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SWB

Note: User:Wayward placed a ((vfd)) notice on SWB on April 30 but apparently did not finish the nomination process. I'm merely carrying out the remaining steps and providing my best guess at the reason for the VFD notice, which is this: This article is about the "Star Wars Board" on "the video game site GameFAQ's"[sic]. IMHO individual discussion boards on community web sites are not encyclopedic by default. I don't see any evidence that this particular instance is any different. --MarkSweep 07:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being the site of many arguments does not make it notable. the wub (talk) 16:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an article filled with personal attacks and inane trivia about a web discussion board on a site that hosts similar boards for thousands of other games. Not exactly something that deserves to be written up in an encyclopedia, even if some people have repeatedly made fun of LtCmdData's choice of username on said board... -- Captain Disdain 20:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Group of users on an obscure web discussion board. Non-notable. - Marcika 14:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Panagia

This article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and has no real content. Unless a lot of information can be added to expand the article, it should be deleted.

• Expand & keep: may be dictdef, but is searchable jargon. --Simon Cursitor 07:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Expand & keep: same reason. JHCC 13:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Short article on a legitimately encyclopedic topic, more than a definition. -- Infrogmation 14:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — more than a dictdef. — RJH 16:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:32, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Expand & keep for reasons listed above. --—Preost ^talk contribs 20:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and kudos to the author for adding this cultural article. Perhaps should be listed as a "{{Stub|Religion}}" but exactly analogous to say Mitre. Fabartus 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly legitimate and encyclopedic stub. -- Decumanus 00:29, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Keep. Good little article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons noted above Csernica 03:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep religious vestments and artifacts. --Unfocused 03:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks longer than a stub already. Wesley 16:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is much more than a stub Yuckfoo 21:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this article is infinitely better than the rather useless one sentence dicdef it started as when I put it up for deletion. This article has definitelly grown to deserve its place in wikipedia! Oracleoftruth 23:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Virtually all the voters argued that the then-current version of the article should not be kept. The comments specifically addressing whether or not this band meets the recommended criteria at WP:MUSIC were also split with at least 2 voters explicitly not expressing an opinion on that topic. Reviewing those standards myself, I am not convinced that a "one-hit wonder" that topped at #71 on a niche chart qualifies. I note that criterion 3 sets the bar at "two or more albums on a major label".

The article was substantially cleaned up during the discussion period but I note that none of the voters in this discussion decided to reverse their votes. Of the two people voting after the clean-up, one argued "keep" and the other "delete". I take this to indicate a lack of confidence that the cleanup was enough to address their concerns.

I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and call it as a delete but without prejudice against the re-creation of the article if/when the band someday becomes notable. Rossami (talk) 23:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

B5 (band)

Band has yet to attain notability. Only one single recorded, an album is claimed to be released in July. The member bios are not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. The group's single has apparently charted on Billboard magazine's R&B chart [2] which would tend to qualify them under WP:MUSIC. Also, they are signed to P. Diddy's Bad Boy Records which is a notable record label. Agreed that the article as it stands is not encyclopedic nor do the member biographies belong in Wikipedia in their current form. --Metropolitan90 08:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • It turns out that their single peaked at #71 on the R&B chart. Abstain. --Metropolitan90 23:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• By policy, I suppose it would be a clean, but, frankly, what would be the difference between blanking this whole thing and "cleaning" by doing the whole of it again? Delete. Geogre 15:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would vote to Keep if cleaned up. Band has All Music Guide article [3] which shows that an album will be released by Bad Boy shortly. However, article is currently not in fit state for retention.Capitalistroadster 01:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only because it meets the guidelines, but it needs a cleanup. Vegaswikian 06:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established, article is un-encyclopaedic as it stands. Megan1967 03:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • See new edit to remove non-encyclopedic content. --Metropolitan90 05:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, and now cleaned up. func(talk) 01:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until album comes out - this band isnt notable. Leanne 10:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 7 "delete" votes to 13 "keep" votes (one vandal and one troll discounted). A few of the "keep" voters added comments that indicate that they do not yet understand the meaning or purpose of Wikipedia:verifiable but there still is clearly no concensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pokémon Pearl and Diamond and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

A yet to be released Pokémon game. Much of this article appears to be speculation from a fansite forum. JamesBurns 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--JamesBurns nominated Pokémon Diamond and Pearl separately. "Speculation for an unreleased game. ... JamesBurns 10:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)" I have merged this here as the same action should be taken for both. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 12:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP is not a crystal ball. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Of vital importance -RicKKK 10:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This was User:RicKKK's first ever edit. JamesBurns 10:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User:RicKKK was blocked for violating policy by choosing a username that is the name of a well known Wikipedia user (RickK). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep assuming it's accurate. Pokemon games are notable. Everyking 11:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Tough one. The games really are to be published, and being official Pokémon titles, we know that they will very much be notable. However, looking at the biggest video gaming sites, practically nothing is known about the games except that they will be released on the Nintendo DS. I'm going to have to say delete, as I know that they'll be resurrected as soon as more details are available by a more honest Pokémon fan. Jamyskis 12:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Would be a valid topic real soon now, but current content is speculation. Weak keep but cut all nonverifiable text. Radiant_* 12:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done, although there isn't much left over. Even the official Pokémon site doesn't have anything to say about the games. Jamyskis 12:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • • Is this the official American site? Just because they don't mention it, doesn't mean it is nt real. Coro Coro is a better source of information on the games. Sonic Mew 21:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Split into two articles, Pokémon Pearl and Pokémon Diamond. They're definitely notable, and almost certain to be released, but why have them as one article? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • They are going to be practically the same game, so they are better off together. See: Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, Pokémon Red and Blue, Pokémon Gold and Silver. Splitting would be silly as at this point it would be the same topic duplicated. Sonic Mew 13:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - At the moment this clearly a Crytsal Ball article, but by the time this vfd is done, more information will probabily be avalible. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepJapan has a habit of unleasing info at any moment. A lot of people will find this notable, as it is of current interest. So while this will be rewritten in november, its status at the moment is notable enough to keep. The crystal ball theory shouldn't not be placed on everything unreleased, (such as it is for the next-gen consoles. People want to know about them, so they are not up for deletion.) Sonic Mew 13:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Important Comment: I have just realised that everyone has been voting for a different topic to the one up for deletion. Pokémon Pearl and Diamond is up for deletion. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, (the official order,) is already an existing topic which is much more detailed. So I vote to Speedy delete Pokémon Pearl and Diamond and, (for reasons I posted above,) Keep Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Sonic Mew 13:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, one should be redirected to the other. But the other topic you pointed us to is still a crystal ball article, and the sites to which the article link only prove what I said earlier - nothing is known about the games yet. My edit of Pokémon Pearl and Diamond is about as NPOV and current as it'll get. Jamyskis 13:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serebii don't update those pages. Note that it even calls Munchlax by its Japanese name 'Gonbe'. It is also a secondary source, as opposed to the magazine scans of Coro Coro, which do prove it. I'm only leaving it because it will be really useful when the games are released. Sonic Mew 14:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, and keep that one, to prevent info being added in the wrong places. the wub (talk) 14:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above due to newly found info. --InShaneee 15:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — a pre-announcement stub with no real content. If the page were more substantial it might be worth saving, but not at the moment. It can be created again once the games are out, if they ever appear. — RJH 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Almafeta 18:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hang on a minute..You can't put this up twice! It was already up for vfd yesterday, why put it up again? Besides, none is speculation. It is all fact. Look at the Coro Coro magazine scans. This is confirmed information! Munchlax has even appeared in a game and the animé. I vote to delete this vfd as it is already on June 1st. Sonic Mew 13:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• It is the same discussion, moved here. Radiant_* 14:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The game will be notable, and it will be released (look at the extent of secondary information). You can see it coming without resorting to a crystal ball. --Scimitar 15:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think we need two articles on one game. Also, I'm removing the link to this delesion from the "Diamond and Pearl article. Joizashmo 16:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The game is comming out soon. Until that time, this is all we know about it. Joizashmo 16:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep redirect Pearl and Diamond to Diamond and Pearl. K1Bond007 18:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (but redirect Pearl and Diamond to Diamond and Pearl). These are games that have been officially announced by Nindendo, folks. Give your Pokemon vendetta a rest, already. Ketsuban (is better than you) 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is no better than attacking schools Yuckfoo 21:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, The game will eventually come out and get an article anyway. --GVOLTT 14:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation -> notability not established, games cruft. Megan1967 03:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Does anyone actually look at the Coro Coro scans? I would have thought notability would be established by the word 'Pokémon'! Anything else would be crystalballery. Wikipedia is not paper!. So 'cruft' should not be a reason for deletion, especially as the previous games in the series, (see template on page,) have done so well! These are notable! Sonic Mew 20:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not perhaps of vital global importance, but notable enough for wikipedia. Kappa 21:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Leanne 10:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you read my response to the last person who said that? Sonic Mew 11:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

When will the deletion notice will be deleted? Wikilord 16:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Johanne Rask Arnesen

Delete. Seems like a blatant vanity page. As a model, its not good to have zero results on Google Image Search, and the only results in Google are copies of this wikipedia article. WoodenTaco 02:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This orphaned and malformed nomination re-submitted by me. No vote. jni 08:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Expand. Certainly not every individual should have an entry in Wikipedia. But some do. I would think that there are a variety of traits or situations that would make a personal article appropriate.
• Examples:

  Affects history: Nikola Tesla, Benjamin Franklin, Adolf Hitler, Linus Torvalds

  Is a significant part of popular culture: Oprah Winfrey, Will Rogers, Robert Service, Jesse Jackson

  Is extraordinary in some way: The Elephant Man, Marilyn VosSavant, June Wilkinson, Robert Wadlow, Angus McGasgill, Robert Hughes

  The sisters Helene Rask and Johanne Rask Arnesen seem to fall into this last category.

• Certainly there are other reasons for inclusion of an article, but these examples are, I believe, sufficient to justify this article's inclusion and its expansion.
• A Google search searches a small part of current knowledge and an even smaller part of human culture, a searchable subset of The Internet. The publically-searchable part of The Internet is not the only news medium, the only communications mechanism or the only fountain of knowledge. People still read books, still talk directly with each other, still eat, still worry and still love. The results of a Google search are less important that has been implied. Physical reality has not gone away simply because of the advent of cyberspace. User:au@xmission.com 09:40, 1 June 2005 (UTC) (No such user. 166.70.38.67 08:45, 2005 Jun 1 according to edit history. Uncle G 23:23, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC))
• Delete. Vanity. Jamyskis 12:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an unknown model does not affect history, nor make up a significant part of pop culture, and is not extraordinary in some way. --bainer (talk) 08:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - one of dozens of non-famous models - Skysmith 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Moment of cynicism: I wonder if this would have generated more keep votes if it had included a picture? --Scimitar 16:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per bainer. As a model you need to be nationally known to get an Wikipedia article in my opinion. Mgm|^(talk) 16:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• By presenting no actual evidence whatever, from the "physical reality" that xe handwaves about, that Johanne Rask Arnesen is "extraordinary in some way", 166.70.38.67 makes a good argument for deleting this article. And all that remains is Johanne Rask Arnesen's name, place and date of birth, sex, siblings (a Wikitree genealogy entry thus far), and that someone (solely the author of the article, for all we know) reckons her to be a major talent. Delete. Uncle G 23:23, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Etacar11 00:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity - The historical record can replace this single line arty after judicious deliberation for, oh -- at least ten years - She will then be 31 and have made an impact as a model, or be a mother with stretch marks or whatever. Fabartus 00:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Buretta

• Looks like incoherent vanity to me. Delete. jni 09:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not so sure think it might be interesting to research Buretta more first. Keep. Note: edit by article author 69.210.96.77
• Delete, speedily: Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "Christopher Buretta" Dewet 09:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Every human being in some way impacts the outcome of history. Every man is a hero for merely getting through the day. Have none of you read James Joyce's Ulysses? It would seem to me that a denial of this article is not just an insult to Mr. Buretta, it is also an insult to yourself. We all will leave our mark on the world, it would be impossible not to. Why deny any man the right to be known for who he is, or even who he wants to be? Maybe it is "incoherent vanity." But what is the sum total of history if not incoherent vanity? Is it not written in the bible "vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Just keep the damn article. Keep. User:byob19 04:39, 1 Jun 2005 Note: edit was actually made by 69.210.96.77
  • Very well put. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to check up on every human being, so we have to limit ourselves to those who make an impact which is measurably greater than average. Kappa 21:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nonfamous person, despite of all the platitudes. Another Wikimanity candidate? - Skysmith 10:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, not written in a remotely encyclopedic style, and no, arguing semantics won't help. We're not denying someone the right to be known, they're free to go elsewhere to do that if somewhere exists. Average Earthman 13:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, every human impacts someone, but the "Jesus of cool" is not an encyclopedic topic. --Scimitar 16:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Vanity page - delete--Kristjan Wager 16:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Skysmith. Vanity. If you want to be known, set up a free website. This is an encyclopedia. Mgm|^(talk) 16:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's vanity, but even if it wasn't, it'd still be an obvious fabrication. Every man may be a hero for merely getting through the day, but telling blatant lies about how "most Buddhist Scholars agree [Buretta] is one of the bodhisitvas", to pick an obvious example, is not only decidedly unheroic but also not a requirement for getting through the day. -- Captain Disdain 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete teenage vanity. --Etacar11 00:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete 'WOT' -- dob 1986, age 19! 'Perhaps need a guideline that someone has to be at least 25 or subject to speedy' would thin these vanity/hoaxes into something we should be spending our time on. say {{Agetrigger}} could immediate place the arty into a basket for 'merit review'... while making the arty invisible on the web. The occasional legit pop-star/icon/boy scientist/mass murderer can then be gated in w/o rewarding the hoaxer by giving them five+ days of fame. Fabartus 00:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Captain Disdain is cognatively impaired and therefore his opinions should not be taken into consideration when making a judgement. I also feel wikipedia should Keep the article.
  • The only edit of anon User:69.210.99.13 - Skysmith 08:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Cognitively impaired? Perhaps, but at least I know how to spell "cognitively". I mean, that's gotta be worth a cookie or something, right? -- Captain Disdain 01:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Motherhood and how it protects against ovarian cancer

POV title, POV content, not wikified and totally unsubstantiated. Also note Motherhood and protection against ovarian cancer, a duplicated location (and now a redirect). violet/riga (t) 09:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge the verifiable/encyclopedic parts (if any) to ovarian cancer. Radiant_* 13:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete outright. Let's let others (with references) edit ovarian cancer without attempting a merge of this to there. The article is an announcement and POV. For what it's worth, what it says is true, and there are increasing epidemiological studies showing that poor countries without birth control have low incidence of ovarian cancer (and menopause) because women are pregnant much of the time, but that's beside the point. Geogre 15:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Leave suggestion to research this at Ovarian cancer. However, this is POV titled and unsubstantiated. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 16:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and how it protects against POV announcements. Nestea 22:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pro-natalist tripe. Kaibabsquirrel 00:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete quack opinion piece. ~~~~ 16:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 23:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International

NN CondeNasty 09:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object to vandalous listing. Alphax ^τεχ 10:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object There is no posible reason this article should be listed for deletion. Looking at CondeNasty's other edits, it's clear he's a vandal and I'm going to revert out the VfD notice. Atlant 14:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Faulty listing, nominator failed to state why this was not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 16:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that this nomintaion is faulty. CondeNasty, please elaborate on why you think this subject is not notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment CondeNasty was listed in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts (and not by me!) so I don't expect you'll see much in the way of discussion/defense from him. Atlant 19:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it is a valid group that has been around for a long time. Vegaswikian 06:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Agree with Vegaswikian. JamesBurns 11:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code Paintings

AFAICT, this violates the WP:NOR policy. Alphax ^τεχ 09:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That book was pretty good, but seems to have caused nightmares for Wiki editors by claiming to be rooted in fact. Orignal Research - Delete - --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)

• Gibberings. Delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now. I've never read the Damned Thing. Are the paintings in fact discussed in the book? If so, it isn't "original research," the paintings discussed surely are notable, and a properly wikified page reporting Brown's speculations about them would be arguably more meritorious than 99% of the other fancruft I still would happily keep. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this article isn't so much about the paintings or even just reporting Brown's speculations, but is instead an attempt to evaluate whether or not those speculations were correct. Therefore, it is original research. A list of the paintings referenced in the book and synopses of Brown's speculations would belong in the The Da Vinci Code article, but the content of this page is most certainly not encyclopedic. -- Jonel 14:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pure speculation. I've deleted it before during an RC patrol last night as a recreation of deleted material. Let it run it's course this time, so we can show the creator the concencus. An article discussing Brown's speculations about the paintings belongs in The Da Vinci Code and has merit. This hasn't. Mgm|^(talk) 16:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone wanted to produce a List of artwork in The Da Vinci Code (or create same as a section within The Da Vinci Code) that would likely be acceptable. Original research about claims in a work of fiction isn't. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 11:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, but needs cleanup - SimonP 23:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Pro-feminism

was listed as a copyvio but the author owns the copyright. The article is an essay and not suitable for an encyclopedia. --nixie 10:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Essay, FAQ, longwinded platform for a URL link, veers pretty close to nonsense in places. Excerpt: Homophobia leads men to limit their loving and close friends not useful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• undecided, clearly needs cleanup to remove pov, etc, and most of the waffle should go (but with the appropriat outlink). I suppose to be a feminist one has to be female, but one can agree with certain tenets of feminism whilst being male. This I think is usually expressed as liberalism, but if anyone can come up with a more specific widely-used term. The piece's author Mr Flood seems to be the only one who refers to this as "pro-feminism" on the WWW. Dunc|☺ 14:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Utterly useless neologism and original research. Therefore it violates the deletion policy. On the content, all I can say is that it is rambling and a cherry picking of things that bother the author. There is no such thing as "feminism," as "feminism" refers to not one, but dozens of developments of thought, so there is no such thing as being pro-feminism, for one is always pro- one type/strand of feminism and never all of them. Geogre 15:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant neologism. Peter ^Isotalo 20:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless POV essay. Nestea 22:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just an essay with little factual information, and it would be too difficult to salvage what little info there is to make the article a NPOV. MegaSlicer 23:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; It's indeed no more than an essay, not wikified in any way. While its not impossible that an article with this name could be decent, this is not. Deletion is better than stubbing it down. -- Ec5618 12:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Not sure about this one, but I er on the side of caution. POV can be tidied up and a quick google for the turn returns 3k hits[4], 290 if you search google groups[5] so I'm not sure it does meet the criteria of a neologism. Axon 11:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Concur with Axon on this. Enough Google hits suggest it doesnt fit into the category of a neologism. Megan1967 03:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The current version has obviously been completely turned around the personal essay discussed earlier. I've heard and seen the term very often (almost invariably in the form and context "pro-feminist men"), and it is subtly but significantly distinct from feminism. Samaritan 12:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and continue cleanup efforts. ElBenevolente 18:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep some major rewriting of this article combined with Google hits indicates this article should be kept. JamesBurns 10:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. Leanne 10:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs heavy editing -- AlexR 10:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Isn't a "pro-feminist" just a "feminist" by another (longer, less precise and ultimately redundant) name (cf: "reverse racism")? Exploding Boy 22:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Steve Baxter

Not notable RicKKK 10:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN Nateji77 12:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN - possible vanity - --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I note that higher up this page is an allegation that RicKKK is, in some way, a sockpuppet name/ID --Simon Cursitor 14:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Note that a page move vandal from a year ago used Steve Baxter as a target of ridicule. Suspect a vandal creation, possible nomination. If sincere, the subject is not yet encyclopedic. Geogre 15:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dunch

Slang neologism. Possibly a dictdef if this were a real word, Google search doesn't support this though. Fazdeconta 11:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Actually "dunch" in English of the North East where I come from is a verb meaning jog or knock. Bumper stickers can be bought with the warning "Divvent dunch us" (don't crash into me). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Buddy slang, borderline vandalism: I've always called it Lupper. Geogre 15:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Already at Wiktionary, so Delete. -- Infrogmation 15:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 11:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it is basically a definition and is in the Wiktionary (which I didn't know existed until now) - Liam S. Dunch
• Delete. dictdef at best. DanKeshet 23:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The term is far from being sufficiently well established (if at all!) for it to merit an entry. -- Picapica 22:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Urban75

The subject of a seemingly endless revert war, is this really worth keeping? Smileyrepublic 14:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article was listed for deletion earlier this month. The deletion discussion was closed here ten days before this nomination, and the result was keep.

• Abstain (for now). How popular is this site? Is the user community as large as say Something Awful or the Straight Dope Message Board? A website has to show some serious notability to be included in the Wikipedia, and after a cursory look at the site I see a lot of activity going on, and 190,000 Google hits is nothing to shake a stick at. Also, we have to consider that if it has a really large user base, this article is likely just going to keep getting re-created, especially if people are already warring over it. — Ливай | ☺ 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Mgm below. — Ливай | ☺ 03:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa rank ~64,000. (For comparison, the sites mentioned above have a rank better than 7000.) A large portion of the Google hits come from the site, blogs, or from/about unrelated sites of similar names (urban75.org, urban75.net). --Xcali
  • Comment - urban75.org and urban75.net are part of the same site. Smileyrepublic 16:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I said on the previous VfD, Emotion Eric, which also has an entry on WP, has an Alexa rank of 98,544, much much lower than Urban75. Should that be therefore deleted too? Thenugga 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a perfectly good article about an encyclopedic website. It's difficult to take a second nomination seriously when it's barely a week after the first was closed. If there were an "endless revert war", this suggests that the article should be protected, not destroyed. As it happens, there doesn't seem to be significantly more revert warring than on comparable articles. However, the nominator, User:Smileyrepublic, seems to have been engaged in a pointless edit war in the past day or two. I'm issuing a warning to him to stop. He's gone way over the 3RR, and I've issued a formal (final) warning on his user talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Examples of Urban 75 in the news:
    • Guardian October 28, 2004
    • Guardian, May 13, 2004
    • BBC News Brian Paddick story
• Keep. I'll assume good faith and think the nominator was unaware of the previous vfd. But I don't see how another discussion is warranted so short after the earlier vfd. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per TonySideway. Falphin 00:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep for integrity of process -- renomination too soon. Xoloz 04:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: wasn't this page on VfD short time ago (and survived)? Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Renominated 10 days after we decided, 13 to 4 (disregarding sockpuppet/anon votes), that it should be kept. We should go ahead and speedy-keep this article, before we end up with a flood of vandalism on the VfD like we had last time. --Idont Havaname 23:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; encyclopaedic, survived recent vote. Warofdreams 28 June 2005 09:40 (UTC)

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

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

Roussette de Savoie AOC

Not notable, should be merged with White wine RicKKK 10:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this is not User:RickK. 66.60.159.190 19:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If I'm likely to bump into it in Oddbins, it should be in Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Winemaking region. Gets a fair number of Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all AOC regions. Klonimus 21:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (I created this). I know its quite short and stubby at the moment, but the aim was to add more structure to the wine entries by adding comprehensive and complete classifications by country. AOCs are the main classification of wines in France (and many other countries) and are a good basis for adding proper encylcopaedic content rather than random articles. Will finish adding the others soon (about 25% done I think). Justinc 01:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable wine variety. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The anonymous and unsigned votes were discounted during the discussion. Unsigned claims of notability through personal experience carry little weight when they come from anonymous or extremely new users. We have had too much trouble with sockpuppets attempting to bias the decision-making process. Rossami (talk) 22:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Titbag Spears

I am having trouble verifying the existence of this musician. I get 23 google hits, but all of the are to internet forums. Also, i found no allmusic entry. Sjakkalle 12:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) 13:36, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Meelar said, insufficient evidence of any notability. -- Infrogmation 14:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Sure seems like an artgag. Not notable enough as a prankster/prank to qualify for an encyclopedia at this point. Geogre 15:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/prank. The name seems like an obvious goof on Britney. --Etacar11 00:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 8 hits on google, all of them link to the profile of a member of some obscure forum. R Lee E 01:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The name makes it blatantly obvious that this should be deleted for several reasons. --Chanting Fox 01:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 01:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Increasingly prominent figure on the Hoxton/Shoreditch art scene, very pretentious, but relatively significant all the same. He uses a variety of psudonyms, often just variations on 'Titbag Spears', presumably as some form of Punk statement. His style is clearly indebted to 80's performance poets like Seething Wells and Attilla The Stockbroker. HipsterKing 03:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not everything can be found so easily on the Internet, particularly not such non-mainstream performers as Titbag Spears. This is what Wikipedia is for. He doesn't stand for such ignorance as that evidenced above, either.
• Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability, or something like that. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:14, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 03:01 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• 'Keep Was mentioned in The Guardian's G2 supplement recently. 06:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote was the fifth contribution by anon 217.205.242.19. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:23, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
• WP:MUSIC. Does the artist Titbag Spears meet any of the requirements? If so, keep. R Lee E 06:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have witnessed Titbag Spears on tour. Been to a few dates across the country and will be going again at the next opportunity. Hopefully I'll get his autograph and touch his garments next time round

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Must Have PocketPC Software

While I can't find an exactly matching case at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, this is a subjective guide and original research which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Thue | talk 13:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• How about 'inherently POV'? Inclusion of a piece of software on this list is entirely subjective. Either way, delete this. Radiant_* 13:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It is inherently POV, therefore it must not stay. Geogre 15:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research ('must have' is inherently subjective). --InShaneee 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Note that the author seems to be trying to create a set of 'how to' articles for his PDA. DJ Clayworth 15:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and gently tutor the author on Wikipedia editing policy. -- The Anome 15:53, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I misunderstood the purpose of the Wikipedia, having seen Wiki's implemented on other sites such as XDA Developers being a source of useful structured information. If its meant to be only collection of stale historical facts meant to settle pub disputes I apologize. I was initially excited by a central repository of all knowledge, but if How To articles are deemed inappropriate I hope we never have to rely upon the Wikipedia to bootstrap us from the next fall of civilization. Sururdavids 16:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is hardly a collection of stale historical facts. It's constantly updated and added to. We've got articles on recent stuff like Kenny McCormick and Harry Potter, but unfortunately, articles aren't collections of historical external links. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 16:54, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. User blanked page. Nestea 22:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of nobility. Nestea 01:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The originator blanked the page and 'revoked his permission to publish'. I think we may take this as the author requesting deletion. (no vote - already voted) DJ Clayworth 19:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Although he cannot revoke permission since he licensed the content under a free license when he sent it, and thus we can "fork" it and work with the previous version. However, this must go ;) drini ☎ 19:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I very seriously doubt there's a way to NPOV this. You 20:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: POV list. Wikibofh 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Danmark (island)

Okay, I know some people are "keep all real places" so let me explain: This rock is completely unpopulated. There are far more many such rocks and reefs off the coast of Norway than there are schools in the United States. Second, I have searched for any verifiable information that Danes living in Oslo actually celebrate their national holiday (June 5) on this island, and I have found nothing. Here is an aerial photo of the island, it is the rock placed in among the small boat piers. That parking lot in the southwest looks more notable than this. Sjakkalle 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: To verify that this actually is the Danmark rock, there is a tab above the photo labeled "kart" (Norwegian for "map"). If you click on that one you will find the rock labelled. Sjakkalle 06:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete rockruft, not quite as bad as schoolcruft but getting there. The second sentence is irrelevant, leaving a 1 sentence substub. Dunc|☺ 13:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the aerial photo is correct, this rock is smaller than my backyard and has exactly one (1) tree on it. I tend to be an inclusionist on geography (I strongly believe that every named & inhabited town/village should have an article) but I find no reason that every one of the world's nearly-infinite tiny uninhabited islands should each have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. If need be the tree can be broken out into its own article. Delete. the wub (talk) 15:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with delete. Unless we can verify that this rock has some significance, it needs to go. Meelar (talk) 15:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I am for keeping all real places with a position in history, which means that I'm in favor of keeping almost deserted towns and villages that had some part to play at any time in the past. However, this particular rock seems to have done nothing, hosted no one, and been fought over by no life forms higher than the puffin. Geogre 15:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 18:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All islands are notable. --Idont Havaname 19:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless there is some evidence anything important happens on that rock. (I say this even acknowledging that there also appears to be some shrubbery on the shore of the island, and not just a tree. I also note that shrubbery redirects to shrub, which inexplicably has no mention of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It does now —Wahoofive (talk) 20:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sjakkalle, Starblind, Meelar, Geogre, and TenOfAllTrades. I am a geography inclusionist, but I ask that anyone who would vote keep please look at the photo in the link that Sjakkalle provided. Quale 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep all territory that is the subject of puffin wars. No, wait, I meant Delete as pointless geo-cruft. Soundguy99 20:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the Danes living in Oslo do celebrate their national holiday on this little rock, I'm not really sure that would be enough to make the place noteworthy enough to deserve its own entry, unless the celebration itself was particularly spectacular or considered a really notable event in Oslo. -- Captain Disdain 20:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this rockcruft please Yuckfoo 22:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this stays, then there are a number of rocks in the Spokane River that should be added to the encyclopedia. --Carnildo 22:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I do note that there appear to be two trees and something that looks artificial (maybe a warning light), in addition to the shrubbery. --Carnildo 22:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, it could just be a fresh tree stump or a bare rock face catching the light. Uncle G 01:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• I normally vote keep on all real places, but there is nothing about this rock that makes it notable. All islands are not notable. Delete. RickK 23:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • ... And several times I've asked RickK whether "all real places" includes my back garden. My back garden has (amongst other things) trees, shrubbery, "something that looks artificial" (i.e. the shed, a feature that I may have mentioned before ☺). It also has fences. Of course, as far as I know no bird spotter has spotted 2 birds in my back garden, as one reported doing on this island on 2002-09-27; although there are birds in my back garden, and so it is quite possible that one might have. However, the fences of my back garden are more verifiable, of course. For those who turn off Javascript for security, here's the fully zoomed in version of the aerial photograph mentioned above. Uncle G 01:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete unless said ceremony does exist, then merge to Oslo. --Tydaj 01:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of community of interest amongst humans (not birdlife) nor is there any indication that there may have been in the past. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to the harbor it's located in, if it can be verified that the aerial photo really is of this place. Likely a reference point for local Danes and boaters in the area. If an island is notable enough to have a proper name, it ought to be merged if it's too small to keep. --Unfocused 03:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) It's much larger than I originally thought it was. There is no minimum article size for a "perfect article". --Unfocused 05:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable uninhabited rock. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• UPDATE I got a response on the Norwegian Wikipedia. here is an invitation to an arrangement by the Danish Society. I will still say delete, because I still don't think this is particularily more notable than any other party site, but I think people voting ought to know. Sjakkalle 06:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I don't think that this arrangement attracts a great deal of Danes. How many Danes do you suppose would fit on that island? Sjakkalle 06:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  The arial photograph shows it as being about 50 meters long by 15-20 wide. --Carnildo 07:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Sjakalle. It's a friggin' rock :) Radiant_* 09:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • so is alcatraz Yuckfoo 21:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Alcatraz is notable for much more than just being a small rock. Gamaliel 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. JamesBurns 11:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can write a halfway decent, relevant, history of this rock. Which seems unlikely. CDC (talk) 22:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this stays, I have a patio that I can write an article about. — Phil Welch 00:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Only if the article includes an aerial photo of your patio. . . . . . . Soundguy99 01:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Google Maps should be able to provide... --Carnildo 02:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Some uninhabited small islands are notable in some way. This one apparently is not. No Account
• Comment But then, we do have an article on Mill Ends Park and it's way smaller than this island.  Grue  16:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There's an even bigger rock in Biscayne Bay, where I grew up, which the local teens call "Beercan Island" for reasons which don't require a lot of imagination. It doesn't deserve it's own article. I suspect this one doesn't either. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:44, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
• Delete. Gravelcruft. Gamaliel 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into an article on the harbour it's located in if that article exists. It seems marginally notable in that it's called Danmark and Danes in Oslo celebrate their national holiday there. I think it's worthy of inclusion. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Question (and comment). Would anyone complain if I merged this into Sandvika and left a redirect? That's the local city, and this is a feature of that town's geography. (On that note, I don't see National Geographic erasing names off their maps because the mapped feature is "too small", so the delete option doesn't seem correct to me.) Unfocused 17:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that would be a good idea. Because it's probably not possible to write a huge article on this island, everything worth saying about it could probably be mentioned in Sandvika. I like this as a general principle in cases of questionable notability. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a harmless compromise, and a as Trilobite says, it's a good general principle. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I can accept a merge and/or a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Achordants

Artilce use with permission, however it is not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 13:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• College a cappella group. Although it sounds like a fun time if you're into that sort of thing, WP isn't really the place for it. Delete. Meelar (talk) 13:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The group apparently have some notability within that scene, and have performed at Lincoln Center; I therefore take no position as to if they are notable enough. The article as it stands, however, if kept would need to be seriously rewritten in accordance with NPOV. My (weak) delete vote is therefore for the gushy unencyclopedic current article. -- Infrogmation 14:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Geogre's "merge and redirect suggestion below is fine by me, if the text is substantially edited/rewritten. -- Infrogmation 19:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into University of North Carolina#Student life, as this is another campus singing group (along with Heels to Heaven and, um, that other one they have). (I only remember Heels to Heaven (a gospel group) because a very shy female friend pointed out that their name sounded like a sexual position.) Geogre 15:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as indicated by Geogre. Few college student groups are notable in and of themselves. --Idont Havaname 19:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not an encyclopedia article. JamesBurns 11:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 18:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oliver the humanzee

This looks like palpable nonsense. However, someone may know better, in which case this needs a clarification and source verification. Simon Cursitor 14:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "One very desperate individual came forward and admittef that he had repeatedly fathered children with his pet chimp daisy". Er, right. Would be BJAODN if it weren't for the total lack of capitalization and punctuation. Radiant_* 14:29, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as the article is a falsification and probably abuse. There was a chimp called Oliver that walked upright and had less hair than a chimp normally does (e.g. seemed more human than the average chimp) but was genetically 100% chimpanzee. I believe there was a TV programme about it (which of course spent an hour saying 'could he be the missing link' before admitting that he clearly wasn't.) [6]. A proper article would warrant a keep, this warrants a speedy delete. Average Earthman 14:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. A quick look shows many google hits for this title with many conflicting stories; whether mutant chimp or just an urban legend, perhaps an encyclopedic article could be written about Oliver, but the dubious ramble listed here certainly wasn't one (looked like a semi-literate grade school vanity insult). -- Infrogmation 14:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We had an article for Chuman, so I put in a redirect.--Arcadian 23:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 18:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Big Neck Records

stub-vertisment Simon Cursitor 14:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, notable indie label. 3400 Google hits, and their website appears legitimate. --Idont Havaname 19:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted- SimonP 18:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Theory

Imprecise waffle about something which may be in the future, but presently is inchoate Simon Cursitor 14:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy ok by me. Orphan article has no useful content at present. -- Infrogmation 14:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Announcement rather than article, and the aims are oxymoronic. The set of all sets must contain itself, and the theory of theories must theorize its own presence. Geogre 15:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 18:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cortez peters

probable hoax Delete carmeld1 14:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy as prank/vandalism. What is "keyboarding?" Is that like water boarding or is it like what Rick Wakeman did or is it typing? (Yes, I know they mean the latter, but I hate all this verbing going on.) Geogre 15:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. although I've seen Rick Wakeman keyboard, if you're going to get arsey about grammar perhaps you should learn that former and latter only apply when there are two alternatives; first, second and last must apply when there are three. Dunc|☺ 16:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need to inform the Mormons in a hurry, then, that there are only two days to choose from! (And verbing is still a crime if there is no need for it to happen. Laziness is not need.) Geogre 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Google to find - [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and about 1,765 other hits. For once, Geogre's Law doesn't work. This isn't a hoax, nor is it a prank or vandalism. Note that keyboarding is a redirect to typing, which is what is meant by the article. Keep but cleanup. -- Jonel 03:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (comment modified by Jonel 22:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Keep; the late Cortez Peters did indeed set a record for typing speed. In fact, I used a book with his name in the title in a keyboarding class I took. HollyAm 04:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 18:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

16 Butons of Justice

Not notable. "16 Buttons of Justice" gets just 46 google hits. —Xezbeth 15:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:25, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism (Japan)

Neologism: The use of the term to refer to the group of young conservative politicians in Japan is not an established one in South Korea, Japan, or the rest of the world. It is only a name that the author of one news article of Choson Ilbo uses to call those Japanese politicians. The term that the author of the news article uses is not even "neoconservatism" exactly but "neocons," and his use of the term is not of scholastic definition but rather of pejorative manner with an insinuation to the famous neoconservatives of the U.S. If someone wants to write about the group of conservative Japanese politicians, it should be written in "Politics of Japan" or "Japanese politicians" or some other generic namespace related to Japanese politics. Saintjust 15:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• We could probably merge this to Politics of Japan, then. --Idont Havaname 19:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think we should keep it as is, as I expressed on the article's talk page. I think it's a bit hasty to make a judgement that this is an isolated neologism. —thames 04:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. The author of this namespace rather seems to be concerned about creating another neocon article to add to the list of neoconservatism rather than genuinely interested in those Japanese politicians on their own merit. Saintjust 14:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I didn't have any agenda when creating it. I personally don't like the term neoconservative, since it is euphemistic at best. But after reading those Korean news items (cited as references), this namespace seemed the most appropriate place to put the information about this group of Japanese politicians. The Politics of Japan article doesn't really seem to have a place to discuss a small faction like these "neoconservatives"—it focuses on parties principally, whereas the Neoconservatism (Japan) article focuses on a group not drawn principally along party lines. —thames 16:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Update: I've added another reference link. This is from the Japan Times, a Japanese english-language newspaper. It's written by a (presumably American) professor teaching in Tokyo. It also refers to Shinzo Abe and Shigeru Ishiba as "neoconservatives". I think this further supports my above feeling that we're being too hasty in dismissing this article and its namespace. —thames 18:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Update: I've added a fourth reference link, this one from TIME Asia magazine referring to this group of legislators as "neoconservatives". —thames 18:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: I've added three more references (although the latter two from the FT require either an FT subscription or Nexis account), and rewritten the intro text for greater balance. —thames 20:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to expanded references. --Scimitar 21:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, keep it. Bonus Onus 00:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• rename if a term has been used pejoratively, then it shouldn't be used as an article title since that inherently breaks NPOV Mozzerati 18:27, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it's any different from having an article on Neoconservatism in the United States, a term which is just as, if not more, frequently used derisively, derogatorily, or abusively. —thames 21:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, but rename to Neoconservative Faction or something similar. There are many factional groups in the Diet, and pages on the groups should probably be supported if accurate information can be found, and it would be a bit much to weigh down Politics of Japan with short articles on factions in the Diet. DirectorStratton 02:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • At Contrary,if appareing interesting.if other apport at topic, if another refference over present day japanese nationalism.i considered keep!over renamed if one interesting possibility but with your present name if well. —200.46.205.177 16:16, 7 Jun 2005

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted- SimonP 18:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy shek

Delete: Vanity, does not assert notability, 8 google hits Wikibofh 15:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps userfy to User: Jimmyshek (from the edit history of the article)? Wikibofh 15:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy nn. --Etacar11 00:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

We are the Mainstream

Non-notable website. 480 google hits, and not many relate to the website in question. —Xezbeth 15:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• My brand new Mozilla Firefox browser extensions record a Google Page Rank of 0/10 and no Alexa rank at all. Doesn't sound particularly popular or notable. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 18:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• It isn't. There are around 370 hits for the page title, and most of them have nothing to do with this site. --Idont Havaname 19:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, this vote is supposed to be to delete. --Idont Havaname 19:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Activating the VOIP Speaker on the Loox 720

Way too detailed. Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual DJ Clayworth 15:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also: How to use the Audio In on the Loox 720 And: Fujitsu Siemens Loox 720 Detailed spec sheet without really saying what it is--part of the same "tech gadget users' group how to info collection"--not really encyclopedic--primary intent seems to be to capture users' guide in electronic form for posterity, which Wikipedia is NOT. Niteowlneils 22:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Don't delete... it works for me!!!! 63.239.69.1 16:37, 2005 Jun 1 (according to edit history. Uncle G 03:21, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC))
• Delete as a how-to. Karol 15:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete how-to riddle with POV words like "exciting" and "poor" and ends with advertisement of the links mentioned. Mgm|^(talk) 18:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a how-to. Non-encyclopedic. --Idont Havaname 19:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wikibooks.--Fangz 21:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The original author, after having been gently and politely pointed in the direction of wikibooks, had a rant, blanked, things left right and centre, and left, which is a shame, since this could have been the beginnings of a wikibook. A GFDL instruction manual? Wikibooks says "Bring it to us!". The original author even had the beginnings of the organization into chapters. Uncle G 03:21, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete entire 'How-to'/'gadget guide' series. Niteowlneils 22:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it just the three articles? Uncle G 03:21, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• The original author is now leaving legal threats (e.g. [12]) on the user pages of people involved in undoing his blanking action. Might as well delete. Kelly Martin 16:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 19:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP is not a how-to, right? --Chiacomo 20:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 22:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, however article covering whole Fujitsu Siemens Loox PDA series would be appropriate, since there is for example article which covers HP iPaq handhelds. --Lmach 20:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~~~~ 16:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

A. Weissmann

Probably should be deleted as non-notable, or userfied. Karol 15:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

deleted as a copyright violation after listing perion on WP:CP--Duk 16:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be a vanity page since it is essentially just a posting of Weissmann's resume. --Alabamaboy 15:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep passes professor test with flying colours (needs clenaup though). Dunc|☺ 16:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • NB. I think this guy's name is Charles Weissman elected FRS 1983 [13], all very odd. Dunc|☺ 17:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • NB2: This is from the IP of a chronic copyvioer special:contributions/143.239.7.1, so it's likely... Dunc|☺ 17:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • NB3: Copyvio of [14], and yes, he's called Charles. Dunc|☺ 17:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In that case delete and leave the space for a real article on the guy. Mgm|^(talk) 19:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Werthman

Non-notable, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 15:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• From article: "Our immediate family line starts with Michael Werthman". Delete, vanity and original research. Mgm|^(talk) 19:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity! And not written in a particularly encyclopedic mannor. UkPaolo 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete genealogy. --Etacar11 00:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "This is only the beginning...." It is good that we can nip it in the bud, then. Get thee to Wikitree! Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete. Uncle G 01:18, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Flea organ

A tiny synthesizer? Its connections with the biting flea are less than apparent. That's for sure. The 100 or so Google entries are almost all WP mirrors. Heaven knows how this article survived since January 2004. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I know quite a bit about synths and have never heard of it. Google returns some hits but all are Wikipedia mirrors. Almost certainly a hoax or neologism, definitely not in wide use. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism/hoax, nothing on google but Wikipedia mirrors. This has been here since January 2004!? Thue | talk 16:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable/possible hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

3.141592653589793238462643...

• Ludicrous. If we keep this, we will have to regard all other decimal approximations to π as valid article titles. And e and φ and so on... Speedy delete -- The Anome 16:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: How many digits of an infintely non-repeating number do we want? Where are the articles on 3,3.1,3.14,3.1415... Wikibofh 16:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Wikibofh; Speedy deleted. -- Infrogmation 16:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect – — RJH 15:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, complete garbage. --InShaneee 15:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Travelcard Zone 7

Travelcard Zone 7 is a fictional Travelcard zone - it's not even that, as it doesn't appear in any noteworthy works of fiction. Something purely made up by the author. Delete. Qwghlm 16:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, it's worth noting no pages link to it and there are no relevant Google results for it [15], [16]. Qwghlm 16:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Presently on WP:VFU. Radiant_* 09:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I voted to undelete this, but I cannot find at all where this fictional card should be. Not notable as far as I can see. Sjakkalle 11:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC
• Delete pending verification. I lived in London for 3 years in the 90s and have been back several times, and I never heard this expression being used. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course, but needs substantiation. Closest I could Google for was a proposal tucked in a 2002 government report for an actual Zone 7 here, at page 29, points 7.12 to 7.13 but that doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere. --khaosworks 14:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not widely used - Tεxτurε 15:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I live in London, I've never heard this term. Even if it exists, its little more than a dictionary deinifnition unless citations of its use can be made. --TimPope 18:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I added the claimed joke to Travelcard Zone 6, which seemed to flow better. Make into a redirect to there, and then argue the existence/notability of the joke in its talk page. Septentrionalis 18:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problem is, noting the joke has the same problems about verifiability - it may be a hoax, and that means the inclusion of it in the Zone 6 article is erroneous. It should not go in anywhere unless it can be verified. --khaosworks 18:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It should go there, and the argument about verification should take place there; thus probably providing consensus for the deletion. Septentrionalis 21:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point is merely this: it should not be included as fact in an article until we can show it's factual, i.e. after the argument about verification. Otherwise we're putting in misleading and inaccurate information in an article. --khaosworks 03:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect without a merge to Travelcard Zones A-D. --SPUI (talk) 03:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If consensus is that it's real, I would suggest merging with Travelcard#The zones or Travelcard#Beyond the fringes and redirecting appropriately.
• Keep It's relevent and used widely.

Really? Can you show us a cite? --khaosworks 22:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've vaguely heard of the expression before. Do not merge as it is a different concept to Zones A-D altogether. JuntungWu 08:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, until there is some evidence that anyone uses the terms. Just claiming that it's used by Londoners and non-Londoners alike, even though it's fictional, doesn't do it without supporting documentation. RickK 22:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - SimonP 15:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Mason (Revolutionary)

• Delete nn vanity page. and I would like to add that capitalists can not call themselves "revolutionaries" ! Revolución 16:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A revolutionary is made so by the context in which he speaks, not by the content of his speech. El beatle 18:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User's 6th edit. 66.60.159.190 20:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep What? Vanity page? If you talk to those who know about these things in the UK, this is hardly a vanity page. This is a man who was imprisoned for a lengthy period of time for his beliefs, and has never fully recovered from his experiences. Talk to any genuine left-wing student at any of Britain's more 'academic' universities, and you'll find his name held in the highest esteem. It's mainly due to the UK's capitalist press that he's been almost excised from general political consciousness (such as it exists now in the UK) - not the case whilst the Morning Star (Socialist Worker) was still around. Is this yet another attempt by capitalist society to try to delete this hero of so many true socialists from ever having existed?
  • This was posted by an anon, User:82.7.132.128. --Idont Havaname 19:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No albums yet. His wife was Shiraz and his daughter is Chardonnay. I suspect a hoax. --Idont Havaname 19:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "His first music album (provisionally titled Bluff and Hokum)..." Delete. Unreferenced. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Replace , as unverifiable, with Charles Dixon of Mason-Dixon Line fame. Actually I'll do that myself. Keep.
  • Nevermind, I'm an idiot. Delete.--Scimitar 20:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep They ran a piece in the Guardian on him a while back, and he named his children after grapes purely because his wife already had a grape name.
  • This is User:62.252.224.17's first vote.
  • Comment: Fine, I looked on the Guardian website and didn't find him. They go back to 1998. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep actually met the guy after his release. Cool unfazed - inspirational Agitprop 22:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: First two edits by Agitprop (talk · contribs). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, nonsense. RickK 23:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 11:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep How many of those voting delete are in touch with true socialism? This guy is not into vanity.
  • Vote was posted by an anon, User:217.137.154.3. First edit by this user. --Idont Havaname 19:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is this just another attempt to rewrite history so that nobody knowsthe fight CM fought against oppression - looks that way to me.
  • This is User:62.252.224.17's second vote.
• Delete. Google doesn't have anything to say about the guy, (after filtering out Charles Dixon and misspellings of Charles Manson). Always ready to lend support in the fight against sockpuppets, (the sock puppet revolution will not be televised). func(talk) 00:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think there's a lot of supposition going on here. Maybe MI6 are still blocking the guy. Not fair to delete on such skimpy evidence. Suggest we leave it up.
  • User:82.7.132.95's only edit. func(talk) 18:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It shouldn't be the function of Wikipedia to try to blot out left-thinkers just because their politics don't fit in with current political fashion
  • This is User:62.252.224.17's third vote. (He's knows that we can track IP address edits, right?) func(talk) 00:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree. Wikipedia shouldn't support what appear to be attempts to politically censor out people who fall foul of the UK secret service
  • User:82.7.132.8's only edit. func(talk) 22:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep That's the whole point some people are missing here. Of course he doesn't show up anywhere. Wikipedia is the one place the thought police can't get at - though I see they're trying to. I'm a student at LSE in London, and there are lecturers here who say they know of this guy from way back - I believe them.
  • 62.255.32.12 (talk · contribs) has 31 edits, 28 made today, 3 made yesterday, after this vote began. (Note: Obviously, I am a card-carrying member of both the CIA, MI6, and of the Thought Police) func(talk) 15:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I went to Sheffield University during the 90s and seem to remember a brief article in the student paper about him - we had a discussion about it with lecturers in the Department (Politics) and one of them had studied with him at university, although didn't remember him particularly favourably! Slightly dubious about the conspiracy theory argument but people certainly knew about him at Sheffield - think it would be wrong to delete in case there is some kind of cover up.
  • The above edit was from 212.50.160.44 (talk · contribs). Dear Mr. 212.50.160.44, if there is a "cover up" going on, wouldn't the better place to "post" this nonsense be to news agencies rather than an encyclopedia? Please stop playing here. No one finds you funny. func(talk) 15:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I hit upon this stuff a few minutes ago, and I don't believe what I see. Who is this 'Func' person anyway? An American. What the hell does he know about British (or indeed world) politics? Just take a look at his user page and form your own opinion! Who is playing games here? Who is trying to be funny? Lack of political awareness and a peculiar skill for playing with IP addresses does not give you the right to control who is or is not relevant to Wikipedia. This is an international resource (including the UK), and not just for Americans, despite what you might think. You are not the only person with an opinion. Take a look above - this is so obviously not the work of whoever created this page. You are entitled to your opinion, but whatever you might think, you are not a God. Far from it.
  • Please refrain from personal attacks. The preceding vote was the first edit by User:213.116.58.30. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, and as an American, I was not aware that the city of Diss derives its name from Dante's The Divine Comedy [17], nor did I know that Diss is a "seperatist stronghold". I appreciate your British insight into such things, thank you. func(talk) 22:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - all this anecdotal stuff is irrelevant, even assuming anyone takes it seriously. Remember Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can't cite sources, it doesn't matter whether the guy's real or not. RayGirvan 00:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There's enough on this page alone to verify the article. This guy is obviously a cult left-wing hero, pretty well known in the UK if not in the US. Whether or not there's some sort of attempt to obliterate him from public knowledge isn't clear, but it does seem possible, and Wikipedia shouldn't allow itself to be hijacked in this way. Let it stay.
  • 82.7.128.7 (talk · contribs)'s first edit func(talk) 01:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete and Kill the socks ! Radiant_>|< 11:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dingleberry Casanova and Prauncey McClitterick

Supposedly a band. Lame profanity hoax. Rl 16:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Read the article's content, my friend! Having a working knowledge of "Buttfuck syncopation" requires extensive training in both the techniques of ragtime piano AND ass-busting, hot-pumping anal sex.

• vote by 172.209.151.130, whose only other edit added a trivia section linking to this article in Provo, Utah. Rl 18:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete No such band in several web searches, obviously a prank - also delete related page Prauncey McClitterick --Outlander 19:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Obvious prank. --Idont Havaname 19:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - utter nonsense. Djegan 19:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete prank/hoax. --Etacar11 00:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted, prank vandalism. -- Infrogmation 05:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Markism

• Delete vanity. Revolución 16:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied, content was "Any quote, phrase, or expression first used by Mark Hennings (ca. 1988-????) that is regarded by people as in some way profound and/or worthy of the act of repetition". Thue | talk 17:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be moved to Wikisource - SimonP 15:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Araby (story)

Should be either deleted, or part of wikisource. No reason to have story in wikipedia. Also available via Project Gutenberg Wikibofh 17:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikisource. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource, though I wouldn't mind an actual article about the story. Mgm|^(talk) 19:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, agreeing with MacGyverMagic. --Idont Havaname 19:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted- SimonP 15:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ethiopian Folktale from Structuralist Narrative Perspective

Original research and/or unencyclopedic. Not to mention long as hell. If a structuralist narrative perspective on Ethiopian folktales really hold any importance, it could be added to an article such as Ethiopian folklore. Besides, this woud appear to be a prank. Salleman 17:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Original research, looks suspiciously like a copyvio. Delete (or, if not copyvio, transwiki). - Mustafaa 17:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not really as long as it seems, much of it repeats itself. Prank at worst, original research at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like an essay. --Idont Havaname 19:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as probable vandalism. It's six copies of a single essay. --Carnildo 23:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 11:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopeadic. The Belgain 21:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be transwikied - SimonP 15:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Edward Porter Felt

Nom (& vote Del on) bio of this non-notable engineer, signif only for 9/11 (no apparent distinction among its victims) and (not as a principal) within his perhaps large, but obscure, employer. (In his first Google hit, only distinction mentioned is

Felt was one of the top five engineers at the billion-dollar company, and received a U.S. patent in August for a software application he designed for BEA.

).
--Jerzy·t 18:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and there's also the Sep11 wiki, unless that project has been scrapped.... --Idont Havaname 19:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move to the memorial. Gamaliel 19:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move to memorial. I've been reading everything I can find online about this guy. Obviously intelligent, well-liked, and successful, but sadly not encyclopedic.--Scimitar 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Move to 9/11 memorial wiki --Carnildo 23:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam — RJH 15:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

James von Kaenel

vanity, not notable JoJan 18:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete JoJan 18:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 14 year old elementary school students aren't quite Billy Madison. Non-notable. --Idont Havaname 19:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kiddie vanity. And I'll bet I had lived more places by the age of nine. --Etacar11 00:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Chris labosky

Obvious vanity page. Deltabeignet 18:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Dump it. Tyoda 18:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 18:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-funny attempt at BJAODN... --Idont Havaname 19:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote from Delete to Speedy Delete. After having re-read the article, a lot of it is just patent nonsense. "Singlehandedly defeated U.S. Army in Vietnam War", claiming to be Deep Throat, and saying that he "ran 3325 miles consecutively without stopping" are just a few of the very absurd things stated in this article. Maybe it's worth BJAODN, but at any rate, it's got to go. --Idont Havaname 03:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete: Hey, anybody who can beat a cheetah is okay in my book.
• Do not Delete: Chris Labosky is a respected Wikipedia -Article Critic on four continents, holds three world records in three equally obscure body manipulation events, and has been observed killing cheetahs with frisbees on at least three different occassions (I've seen the videos); hey, if Gary Coleman's got a Wikipedia article, this guy sure as heck should
• Don't Delete this he is too good of a runner and too good of a student to not have a Wikipedia article he is really fast if he can beat a cheetah too
  • This vote and the two before it were User:152.163.100.197. My reply to them is WP:POINT. --Idont Havaname 01:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not only is his article vanity, but the votes here are idiocy. RickK 23:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kiddie vanity. SOO glad to know he shaved his head yesterday... --Etacar11 00:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy we don't need rubbish like this. Kel-nage 00:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• friends of cheetahs should not be allowed to edit articles. Delete. Uncle G 01:29, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Do not Delete: I don't see why this article should be deleted. Over 80% of the information given in the article is legitimate.
  • This vote was by User:204.210.189.130. --Idont Havaname 19:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and not verifiable. Vegaswikian 06:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete Because Chris didn't even WRITE this article. I mean, come on. It's not vanity if he didn't do it. Seriously. If you don't believe it, go to www.ohsaa.org and research the Division I Austintown/Youngstown Regional Track Meet results. I bet you will see a very familiar name in first place. Also, he DID shave his head, he DOES like to pronounce "Nicaragua" that way, he IS AP Stats student of the year, he LOVES leaders with big muscles and loud voices. It is the truth. You guys are just mad because you can't run fast.
  • Vote was by another anon, User:198.234.224.6. --Idont Havaname 19:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, compromised by the recent discovery that Deep Throat was William Felt, and not this guy. Bob Woodward, when reached, said he hadnt heard of Labosky, but was willing to make some money off him. Seriously, vanity, or, at best, seriously non-notable.Hornplease 17:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sock-supported complete nonsense. Jonathunder 21:26, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 02:57 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Shanes 04:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't need VfD, just speedy delete it. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious vanity. — JIP | Talk 04:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Chris is a model-american and deserves a Wikipedia page.
  • Unsigned vote by User:24.166.43.161. — JIP | Talk 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete. This article is certainly a laudable attempt at absurdist humor and as such represents an exemplar of pre-post-modern deconstructionist structualism and a solid refutation anarcho-syndicalist nihilistic existentialism. Anyone who reads this article and concludes otherwise only demonstrates his clear bias towards this latter school of thought; his vote should be ignored. It should also be noted that he certainly has no tolerance for either curling irons or baracudas.
  • Unsigned post was by User:Runner06. It was his first edit, which tells me that he was at least one (if not all) of those anons that voted previously in this VfD. --Idont Havaname 02:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Based on all of the above "Do Not Delete" votes, this article and its VfD might be good enough for BJAODN now. --Idont Havaname 02:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. The recent discoveries of both the Habitat of Action Towards E-Righteousness (HATER) and an independent commission at George Washington University confirm the serious Authoritarian Complex of the Wikipedia Media Empire. see, Wiki-Facism. It is also well-known that Wikipedia has plans to buy the Christian Childrens Fund and use it to make a profit. A vote to delete this article is a vote against your rights!!
  • Unsigned comment by User:198.234.224.6. — JIP | Talk 17:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that if some of the nonsense (Singlehandedly defeated Germans in World War II", "ran 3325 miles consecutively without stopping") is removed from the article by editing, I think that this could stay on, as long as it were all true. However, I will stay neutral until editing is complete. IanManka 04:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsigned comment by User:204.210.195.4, later signed by User:IanManka. — JIP | Talk 04:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. i love this site its so awsome omg chris is a beast from outerspace don't delete it its all true all that info ya iknow its hard to believe but wut can i say he is frickin awsome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Unsigned comment by User:24.166.71.129. — JIP | Talk 04:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and quickly, before this Tallmadge-cruft (cf. High evif) spreads much further. Frjwoolley 23:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Speedy delete okay by me. Junk supported by sock-puppets as a prank. -- Infrogmation 19:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DDerby 16:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it is a vanity article to me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Bibolonious

Delete vanity and spam drini ☎ 18:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. It looks like it's only one flash animation, not a full site of them on par with Homestar Runner or Newgrounds. --Idont Havaname 19:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ad. Doesn't back up claims. Vanity. Delete, speedily if possible. Mgm|^(talk) 19:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self promotion. Gblaz 23:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I enjoyed the 5 of them on the NasMAYHEM website. very good. noXid 23:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mechanical lobster

Band vanity. If it turns out to be more notable than I thought, it needs a rewrite to a more encyclopedic tone. Mgm|^(talk) 18:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

deleted after listing period on WP:CP--Duk 16:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First page of the 388 Google hits is Soundclick and a bunch of that don't have to do with the band. --Idont Havaname 19:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Differences between the Norwegian and Danish languages

Wikipedia is not a general knowledgebase. There is nothing in this article that couldn't (or shouldn't) be described in either Danish language or Norwegian language or for that matter North Germanic languages (a.k.a. Scandinavian languages). And there's really nothing that is significantly more important in the differences between Norwegian and Danish, than, say, between Swedish and Norwegian or for that matter any other combinations of closely related languages.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, useful comparison of two closely related languages. Kappa 19:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, totally in agreement with Kappa. It's factually correct, well written, and of interest. UkPaolo 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a lovely article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there in fact any article that could not be kept as long as people deem it "useful"? The issue is how all five Scandinavian languages are related to one another, not how each individual language is similar (or dissimilar) from one of the others. This is just a lot of very redundant information that should be described in Scandinavian languages. To try to get this to a discussion of principles rather than alleged usefulness: do you really mean that if someone were to create articles for all possible combinations of Scandinavian languages, you would accept them all as valid and enyclopedic? / Peter ^Isotalo 20:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: There are only three Scandinavian languages: Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Also, the relationship between Danish and Norwegian is of special interest because modern Norwegian is developed from Danish (they were almost entirely the same written language until 1907).
    • (Sub-) articles on various combinations of closely languages would certainly be very useful to some readers, and I don't see what harm they would do to anyone. Kappa 05:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Any article that isn't 100% false, blatantly POV of purely offensive does no harm, but it means one could include almost any piece of general knowledge at all. I'd say it's harmful to the overall quality of our articles. Why do you think "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" is in the official policy? Peter ^Isotalo 18:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" is there to stop people adding random trivia. This article is beneficial to the overall quality of wikipedia. Kappa 17:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • This is the linguistic equivalent of a physics article titled differences between vanadium and chromium. It is linguistic trivia, but for some reason people seem to think that the academic standards for language articles should be kept firmly at a grade school level. Really, it's that silly. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge good information, but it seems silly to have it in a seperate article. Oracleoftruth 20:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge where? RickK 23:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Peter--merge. Meelar (talk) 21:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable difference. Klonimus 21:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. - Mustafaa 21:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge whre? RickK 23:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • North Germanic languages, of course. Were it not for nationalism and orthography, the Mainland Scandinavian languages might be considered mere dialects of one another today. And, mind you, the information in this article is of very low linguistic value; it has been written by someone of very shallow knowledge of even basic linguistics. The section on prepositions is not particularly representative and includes blatantly false info including info on the combined definite artilces/demonstrative pronouns under "Prepositions". On top of this I just noticed that the info on the use of the Danish definite article are just plain false. "Den" is in this case a combined demonstrative pronoun and definite article, but Danish uses the same definite endings as in Norwegian and Swedish except that the syntax is slightly different; Swedish and Norwegian use the definte suffix -n/-t in situations where Danish does not. As an example, the word bil is inflected identically in singular definite/indefinte in Swedish, Danish (and Norwegian?); bil, bilen ("car", "the car"). The differences could really be described in just one paragraph and without redundant examples, and could be generalized to include far more dissimilarities at one time. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please !Yuckfoo 22:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Norwegian languages. —Simetrical (talk) 22:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice article. RickK 23:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Scandinavian languages. The raison d'être of that article is to explain why the three North Germanic languages Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are mutually intelligible (and thus, in practice, how they differ). The information is good though, merging could be done just by adding a new header to Scandinavian languages. Salleman 00:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative useful article that functions well as a specific sub article of Scandinavian languages. -- Decumanus 00:33, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. ElBenevolente 02:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Scandinavian languages per Salleman. carmeld1 03:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish are the prototypical examples of how the distinction between languages and dialects is often arbitrary. Those three are considered separate languages, but are all mutually intelligible. We should, therefore, have some discussion of the relationships between the languages. If this article is kept, I would definitely hope to see similar articles comparing Danish and Swedish as well as Norwegian and Swedish. Alternatively, a single article comparing all three would be fine. As yet another alternative, all such comparisons could be merged onto the page Scandinavian languages. Since I have no real preference between those options, no vote besides the probably unnecessary "do not delete". -- Jonel 03:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - and compare Differences between Scottish Gaelic and Irish. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This cannot easily be merged into any single other article, and is sufficiently detailed to merit its own. Xoloz 06:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Norwegian and Danish are so close that an article comparing the two is justified. Sjakkalle 06:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, title is too verbose. Radiant_* 09:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep too much to merge. JamesBurns 11:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand into a general table of differences betwent the Scandinavian languages. Hornplease 17:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there is already an extensive article about this sort of comparison between American and English. ~~~~ 16:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. As a non-native Scandinavian (as distinguished from Nordic) speaker, I understand the differences between Swedish and Norwegian/Danish, but so far, Norwegian and Danish themselves have seemed completely identical to me. This article must be kept as a source of information of their differences. — JIP | Talk 17:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Some may find it trivial, but it's noteable and useful information and isn't harming anyone. WINP. Blackcats 00:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I find myself baffled when I encounter a text in either Norwegian or Danish. Though as a suggestion, maybe including differences with other Scandinavian languags too? Just a thought. --Chris 04:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Emily Gilmore

Do we need an article on a character from a TV show? User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 19:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gilmore Girls -- Eagle^amn 19:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gilmore Girls. Wikiacc 20:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gilmore Girls; do the same with Lorelai Gilmore and Rory Gilmore. Bearcat 07:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The text in all these articles should be transferred to the Main characters section in the "Gilmore Girls" article. -- Eagle^amn 20:25, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand -- we have articles on many Buffy characters, Dead Like Me characters, Veronica Mars characters and so one. Why should Gilmore girls suffer? MosheZadka 08:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with MosheZadka. - SimonP 15:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

"arielle baer"

Non-notable, possibly vanity. User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 19:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Certainly non-notable, only 32 google hits. --Canderson7 19:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Thue | talk 19:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity, and improperly formatted title. --Idont Havaname 19:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pure vanity. 67.101.113.10
• Delete vanity. I get more google hits. (And I'm not notable either) --Etacar11 00:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody

A one-line dict def, about what would appear to be a prediction about a forthcoming unnotable game character. Not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not the place for this. UkPaolo 19:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete speculation. JamesBurns 11:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 02:55 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nobody is not notable. No Account

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 rewritten article. sjorford →•← 13:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mehran

Nothing more than an indication that it's a Persian name. Has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. RickK 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep BD2412's rewrite. RickK 18:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep drini ☎ 01:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. While I would not call this a "speedy" case, I will abide by the outcome of the discussion on names and surnames. I know of no notable Mehrans to justify a disambig, and can find nothing of historical or etymological siginificance on this name, so I will not vote to keep it. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:06, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • On second thought, redirect to Mehran Karimi Nasseri, who seems to be the only one in Wikipedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:07, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
    • D'oh!!! There's an Iranian city called Mehran. I'm turning this into an article on it. This is not a vote, just a notice. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:16, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent work, BD2412! --Unfocused 03:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 Jun 2005 UTC

Cheryl Campbell

Not particularly notable. Robojames 20:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. You've got to be joking! She played female lead to Bob Hoskins in Pennies from Heaven. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard of her. DJ Clayworth 20:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a great article (yet) but definitely a noteworthy subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• alright, I stand corrected and withdraw this VfD --Robojames 20:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• VfD withdrawn (and rightfully so) - is this a case for a speedy keep? -- BD2412 ^talk 01:10, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable British actress. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm summarily removing the VfD notice from this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unilateral action to remove VfD notice before the five day period is inappropriate. Please don't do that. Keep — notable. — RJH 14:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay. Reverted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Was this deletion proposed because Cheryl Campbell has never done a nude scene? Are nude scenes the key to notability? Should I do a nude scene so I can get a Wikipedia article? --Aussieintn 15:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Frozen Solid

Vanity, possible hoax DJ Clayworth 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --drini ☎ 21:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google returns no hits that I can find, which is a fairly good indication of how noteworthy they are. Secondly, and more importantly, bits like "They First leared to play insterments in the late 2020's" make them seem like obvious fiction to me. Guess that's, uh, supposed to be funny. Truly, this is the work of a genuine comedic genius. -- Captain Disdain 21:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy as obvious prank/hoax fine by me. -- Infrogmation 05:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 11:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a real band. we may not be good. we have merchindice...Shinyninja 8:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy would be fine by me -- many spelling errors and plugs for their merchandise suggests prank/vanity. ---IanManka 19:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 19:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

HYPS

Delete:acronym, and seems to be the source of a nice little POV vandalism scuffle by anons. Initially marked as speedy (by myself) as nonsense, bringing here for resolution. Wikibofh 20:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States. Wikibofh 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I vote to keep the article.
  • Vote made by User:Stanford08 Wikibofh 20:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I as well vote to keep the article.
  • Vote made by User:68.6.122.161 Wikibofh 20:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, the article should stay and let me elaborate on this. First of all, the term HYPS is widely used among people in the know. College counselors refer to it and people refer to it in many internet discussions. Second of all, there is a page called "HYP" that appears to have gained legitimacy. This "HYPS" page seems no less legitimate, and definitely reflects upon its wide usage on the internet.
  Times are changing, and internet publications like chat forums and talk boards should be taken seriously. They are a new form of print media in the 21st Century, and Wikipedia, of all organizations, should respect this. Therefore, I think that the fact that HYPS is widely used among internet chat forums is evidence enough of its legitimacy. It's equivalent to dictionaries like Webster inculding slang words like "cool" in its entries.
  • Comments made by User:Stanford08 Wikibofh 20:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This article should definitely stay. I see no reason why it should be deleted since it is entirely revelent and far from nonsense.
  • Vote by anon User:128.12.48.246 Wikibofh 20:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I vote to keep this article. I use the term HYPS all the time with people who are knowledgeable about the academic community. It is far from an obscure term, and I think it certainly has legitimacy. Yes to HYPS!
  • Vote by User:Roosterhead, this user's only post. Likely Sock puppet. Wikibofh 20:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete So far only 4 voters Wikibofh, Stanford08, Roosterhead and me. Anon votes don't count. And given the same style used in two votes, I agree they may be Sockpuppets. Besides, article is not relevant. drini ☎ 21:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• ""Do Not Delete"" Keep it. This delete page hasn't been up long enough to discount it Drini.
  • Comment made by 128.12.48.249 (talk · contributions)
    • The statment about the relevance was my personal opinion and comment on my vote. So it means it should be read "Besides, in my point of view this article is not relevant" Thanks.drini ☎ 22:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Incidentally, the article is a little Ameri-centric ("in the world"? I think Oxford University and Cambridge University, among others, are pretty exclusive) --Scimitar 21:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • However, nobody puts Oxford or Cambridge in acronyms used to describe the best schools. HYPS is commonly used, and based on that criterion, I feel that it should be included. If people started using HYPSO or HYPSOC to include Oxford and Cambridge, I would not be opposed to using that acronym. Anyway, this is not a contest about which colleges are better. This is simply a proposal to include a commonly used acronym in Wikipedia in order to better inform people and to spread the wealth of knowledge on the web. There is no ego-stroking here, just information exchange. User:Stanford08
    • Forgive my semantics, but my "nobody", I assume you mean no American that you know of. I imagine they probably have acronyms over in Europe too. I would recommend Transwiki to wictionary (if others consider this appropriate). Also, I'd like to thank the proponents of this article for their civility. --Scimitar 22:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I recommend that rather than transwiki instead you encourage User:Stanford08 to stop writing Wikipedia and to start reading Wiktionary. Xe will find there the word Oxbridge. Uncle G 00:12, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a database of chat room acronyms. Gamaliel 21:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This page has been vandalized numerous times. Although it is an actual acronym, pages like this often incite school-bashing. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
  • Vote by User:Ender_238. This user's only edit. Wikibofh 21:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I am sorry for commenting so much on this page, and I promise this will be my last one for this particular vote for deletion. Anyway, I just wanted to say that since HYPS is an actual acronym that is certainly used fairly frequently, I think it would be a great disservice to the users of Wikipedia to deny them this useful piece of information. I would understand the need for deletion if HYPS was some made up term, but it is definitely well-established. I hope that in the future, when the term HYPS becomes too well-established to ignore, Wikipedia will allow this topic to have its rightful place in this section. Thank you all for participating in this vote, and I look forward to collaborating with you guys in the future.
  • Comment by anon User:128.12.48.246 ; drini ☎ 22:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:Thank you very much for being so civil, too often these things get taken as personal attacks, it isn't. Given the obvious knowledge about the universities in question, I hope you can improve those articles and then keep on rolling!  :) Wikibofh 03:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Change the order of the universities and move to SYPH... Just kidding, Delete. --Tabor 22:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and the related HYPSM and HYPSMC --Carnildo 23:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Carnildo. Sockpuppet limit has been reached. RickK 23:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Banishing the sock puppets would never be amiss as well. Mr Bound 23:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I vote delete because I have never heard the acronym HYPS with the S at the end, however I have heard the term HYP (Harvard-Yale-Princeton) quite alot in the academic/student world and it is definitely more than just an internet chatroom term. -CunningLinguist 00:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless good sources are provided showing that this combination is actually in widespread use. A newspaper story... a quotation from a college guide... something like that. A factoid like this cannot stand on the sole authority of Wikipedia editors. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There is a link to an online dictionary that mentions HYPS and its definition. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/HYPS Vciousangel
• I just wanted to let you know people that I VfD the similar page HYPSMC drini ☎ 22:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly Merge and Fully Redirect to Ivy league. func(talk) 23:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• And now we have hyps, too. A Google search convinces me that there's a Wiktionary article HYPS to be had here, expanding the initialism, establishing use, and giving the origin if it can be determined. The silly edit wars in this related series of articles convinces me that there's nothing encyclopaedic to be had here whilst still retaining the NPOV. As per Func, Redirect to Ivy League. Uncle G 00:12, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  • ... to wherever HYP (universities) ends up. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2 for details. Uncle G 02:36, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSM. —Lowellian (talk) 23:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 - SimonP 15:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Future of ridesharing (and redirects Future of car pooling, Future of on-demand car-pooling, Future of carpooling, Future of Hitchiking)

Articles about the future are by nature non-encyclopedic (see WP:NOT), also, appears to be original research to promote the author's views [18] Brighterorange 20:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. For all the reasons above. Oracleoftruth 20:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 23:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In the future, there will be no cars, as everyone will sit at home all day editing Wikipedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:41, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete original research. --Etacar11 01:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The phrases they will probably attempt to monopolize on-demand ridesharing., This could raise the cost of the service and also limit the size of the pool of drivers and riders to match., Legislation may be enacted requiring mobile phone providers to allow subscribers to select 3rd parties who may receive their coordinates., and Electronic credits may also be easily arranged so that drivers will be motivated to pick up riders as a means of defraying costs. clearly admits that this is a speculative article and why it should be deleted. --SuperDude 00:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Points of reference, Hierarchical Mind, Contextual Mind, and Contextual mind model

Delete. Original research. These are all from Chain, who describes them on his user page as his own theory. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:41, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• delete all of them as OR Brighterorange 20:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all althouth I think you should've created a vfd page for each one. drini ☎ 20:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought of that, but they're quite cross-referential. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:08, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Delete, original research.--Fangz 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I couldn't make head or tail of that. Oh, and I rather like group nominations in limited cases such as these, it prevents people from having to repeat themselves. Radiant_* 08:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: keep. sjorford →•← 13:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good Sam Club

Delete Vanity and self promotion drini ☎ 20:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. An RV owners' association; the name in quotes gets me 65,000 google hits, and their website claims over a million members. Meelar (talk) 21:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They're a huge association. --Scimitar 21:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Meelar. My grandparents were members from back in the 1960s, and it was well known (perhaps even better known) back then. --Unfocused 21:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Noteworthy association. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable organization. I had no idea they were that big, or were exclusive to RV owners. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a very large, very well-known association. The article needs serious work, though. --Carnildo 23:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known RVing group. RickK 23:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to Sam Spade :) Keep Radiant_* 09:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Hunt for the Decimator

Unencyclopedic article detailing a specific mission of a non-notable game. Fangz 21:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The game has an encyclopedia article, so it might be notable. This mission, on the other hand, isnt. Delete. --Scimitar 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Possibly merge with Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. the wub (talk) 08:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. JamesBurns 11:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was Speedy Deleted by 22:02, 1 Jun 2005 UTC by Mustafaa for blanked by creator. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kyantonius

Looks like an inexperienced user put his user page in the main space. Userfy. Fawcett5 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. It's already on his user page. Maybe a kind soul will explain the dude what he's done wrong? Eixo 21:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Rape of Christ

Non-notable theory. Martg76 22:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - unless a notable scholarly debate can be verifiably cited (I don't think so) perhaps merge stuff amout the film to The Devils (film) --Doc (?) 22:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Rape of Christ "probably occurred somewhere in the vicinity of his anus"????? "it was common for the Romans to commit sexual perversions" against the condemned???? Need more be said? If (as seems true from one of the references) some asshole teaches Christ was raped (couldn't resist the pun, so please forgive the crudity), that fact belongs on the page of said asshole. The "teaching" doesn't rate a page of its own (and I'm not sure the "teacher" does, either, even to point out it's an assertion with no evidentiary basis...) - Nunh-huh 22:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this 'theory' had any merit, it is too short to deserve its own article. Deus Ex 00:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for Christ's sake!!! Or merge that one line of relevant info and redirect to The Devils (film) - seems to be the only popular source for the phrase. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:52, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be a legitimate theological theory. One reference is irrelevant, and the other rants about "heresy." AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Frjwoolley 00:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Junk. Eric119 16:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Oh come on, haven't you seen Midnight Express. That's exactly the kind of shit that happens. Anyway, to deny the Rape of Christ is to deny the ultimate sacrifice that Christ made for our sins. I took out the vicinity of his anus line, that was just a joke, cause someone was telling me it was gonna get deleted anyway. Brjatlick 16:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete what is going on here really Yuckfoo 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 02:53 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but only if it can be shown to be a theory held by a distinct group of people larger than 1000, or by an extremely vocal group. ~~~~ 16:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thalban

Page is hopeless - but that's not a reason to nominate - it is also non-notable fantasy-cruft --Doc (?) 22:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete fantasy race from a not mentioned fantasy setting. Likely to stay orphaned forever Fornadan (t) 23:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Term gets exactly 1 relevant google hit on a science fiction fantasy art page. You'd expect a real fantasy race of horse-mages to be all over the web. Probable vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete nn cruft. --Etacar11 01:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Video Gamers First

No notability established, appears to be an advert veiled as an article. Nothing links here. --EvilZak 22:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 22:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Zeipher17 Talk 22:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Could you give the VfD crowd the reason why Wikipedia should keep this article because you're the creator? Why is this site "notable?" According to the website, it is like one of the many video game fan websites out there on the web that doesn't have the internet traffic compare to Gamespot, GameFAQs or IGN. --Chill Pill Bill 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the lack of notability. Give a big round of applause to Zeipher17 for voting Keep on his article without anything to back up and Myusername1 for vandalizing this VFD. Nestea 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Again. Nestea 01:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And again. Nestea 02:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And again. Somebody ban this guy, please. Nestea 02:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability K1Bond007 05:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, website with an alexa >200, 000, not unique in anyway and a cynical person might think this was added to increase revenue from crappy popups --nixie 02:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin 02:52 June 3, 2004 (UTC)
• As the owner of VGF, I will remain neutral (I'm assuming this is allowed). I was considering voting delete to blend in, but I'll resist that temptation for the time being. I'm not voting keep because keep votes apparently aren't particularly welcome in this discussion (looks like at least one was deleted and one was blasted for being the same as two delete votes, which nobody mentioned), and I don't particularly care whether this article remains or not anyway. If I did care, I'd PM our 50 most active forum members and have them descend on this topic. It's pretty apparent where this vote is headed, since most of the people who have voted thus far appear to be either new to the Internet or just don't know that much about video game sites. That said, I have a few comments about the site (I'll try to be brief... apologies if this is too long).

VGF has a fairly long (8 year) history. It started out as a single site that was updated on an excessively frequent basis, at least twice daily every single day (all original content). The community, which remains a strong focus to this day, was a large part of that. In a short time, it was built up to a very respectable stature in the video game site genre. As it became more popular, it evolved into a network. This was very successful, and VGF soon became one of the top video game networks in the world, reaching 25 million monthly page views at its height and owning several of well known sites. This allowed it to partner with all the major ad networks while I personally became among the most prominent voices in the online advertising community as one of the most respected members of Geekvillage and Gethighforums, as well as a writer for Adbility. Granted, this was only 1/4th of IGN's numbers at the time (though certainly respectable by any standards and on par with others like GX - Gamers.com, FGN, and Gamefan), but we didn't have $1 billion (with a b) to flush down to the toilet either. To the contrary, I was dirt poor when I started the site.

Unfortunately, a couple years ago as the bubble was fully bursting, without the financial backing the major corporations had (and even they all either collapsed or had to be bought out to survive), it became necessary to make cutbacks, including deliberately killing off traffic. As a result, I'll acknowledge that VGF is not nearly as large as it once was or could have been. Still, it's unfair to claim it's unknown. Also, since we update on a regular basis and have an active community, I fail to see how it's just an advertisemnt. And it's just silly to claim that nothing links to VGF, even though the number of links is perhaps not particularly large. Regardless, what I would like to stress is this... If you want to visit the site, you're welcome to. If you don't want to visit it, who cares? But at least try doing more than 30 seconds of research based on clicking one link, visiting Alexa (inaccurate spyware that at one time ranked itself #3), or getting one unobtrusive popup here or there (oh no, it's the end of the world!) before bashing it. Ssacobie 20:28 June 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I find it funny that your first line reads "As the owner of VGF, I will remain neutral", yet your article (which is much bigger than the VFD'd article) is completely in the direction of keeping the article. It's good that you didn't have your forumgoers descend on this topic, because then it wouldn't make a difference. (sockpuppetry) As for the keep votes, one was made with no reason to back it up, and the other was deleted because along the way, the voter vandalised other votes (read the history of this VFD, please). I doubt those three paragraphs save the article from below the notability bar, but it was a good try. Nestea 01:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd just like to say that a part of this site's network already has an article on Wikipedia. Neglected Mario Characters is part of a hosted site on this network. As for the advertisment claim, I don't work for the network and wouldn't benefit from it in any way. Zeipher17 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Fat american

God bless the USA - and delete this rant --Doc (?) 22:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• We already have Ugly American. Delete. Fire Star 22:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. Americans are, by and large, fat, and this sounds like a real slur. Also, people who write lame pseudo-Christian shit like "God bless the USA" are... personal attack removed. (anonymous comment by User:Stiegl).
  • I was being semi-ironic - but you are just being plain ignorant --Doc (?) 23:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Doc, I think he just insulted you. PERSONAL ATTACK ALERT! Nestea 01:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• comment: could be real. Americans are quite fat. Perhaps someone could verify. Budovice 23:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete unsalvageable POV rant Fornadan (t) 23:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As a fat American, I demand equal time for fat Canadians, fat Mexicans, and fat people from whatever other countries there are in the world. Either that, or Delete this POV rant. (Oh, and indeed, $DEITY bless the USA.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content, then maybe redirect to Ugly American. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:44, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Delete rant nonsense. You don't see me writing an article on how annoying the French are... ;P --Etacar11 01:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• America could sure use some blessings, but delete. --Tydaj 01:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm an American, and I've never heard this. The article doesn't seem to follow NPOV very well. --Idont Havaname 02:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps because you are an American, that you've never heard of it. 132.205.44.134 16:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant --Chill Pill Bill 02:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the Doc. K1Bond007 05:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rant. Sjakkalle 07:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• CLEANUP rant; I've heard of this term, but AFAIR, it means the gluttonous American who uses disproportionate amount of resources, and has obvious displays of avarice and gluttony, without a care for the needy of the world, or environment, etc. who claims that it is their fair share that they are using, and that the fair share for say India, is much smaller per capita (this is either because of a per nation POV or a per acre POV, instead of a per capita POV, if said American were blameless) (most obvious example: Anti-Kyoto accord ads in the US saying it's not fair that the US has to reduce greenhouse emissions while China does not, and that China will have more emissions that the US... fair if looked at from a per acre or per nation POV, unfair if looked at a per capita POV. Since the US is a "great bastion of democracy", the per capita POV should be the most appropriate one) 132.205.44.134 16:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Phil Welch 01:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Cuisine of the United States ~~~~ 16:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mall monkeys

The entire current text of the article is "mall monkeys is a comic strip on the internet". It appears to have been a web comic at some time, though it is defunct and no longer available on the web. Is this notable enough to have an entry, and is there anything to say about it? --Tabor 22:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I remember reading it a few years back. It was quite amusing, if I remember correctly. Not very notable, tho. --Tydaj 01:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, useless orphan substub. -- Infrogmation 05:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Nuns and Soldiers

Very POV with no encyclopedic content. Only a complete rewrite could fix it. The JPS 22:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep and expand after Rick's stub. The JPS 21:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Amazon it's a classic. Unless someone writes a real review, delete.Keep with RickK edits Fornadan (t) 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Make it NPOV. Then keep. --Idont Havaname 02:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hopelessly POV. better to start over. carmeld1 03:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that one of the criteria for speedy deletion is that if an article has been deleted before, it can be re-deleted on sight by an admin, without having to go through VfD again. So somebody might offer a great rewrite of this article, and it would still get speedied. That's why it's better to keep and rewrite. --Idont Havaname 04:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely, though, an admin wouldn't speedy a genuine article about this? The JPS 12:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, this sometimes happens. Thanks to RickK for starting up the rewrite. --Idont Havaname 19:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Since it is a classic, then it belongs in WP. No point deleting the article if we are just going to recreate it and rewrite.--Fangz 03:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Idonthaveaname and Fangz. Xoloz 07:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The text in the article is one persons opinion - a signed, self review which doesn't even name the author. It is not in the slightest bit encyclopedic and must go entirely, and we don't need the history. Delete and list on requested articles. Average Earthman 09:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not an encyclopedia article. JamesBurns 11:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I have pared it down to a one-sentence stub. Keep and expand. RickK 18:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Kappa 10:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Paul and Tilley

A non-notable pair of individuals who create flash animations. A Google search for "Paul and Tilley" shows sixteen results, several of which are Wikipedia-related projects, the rest links between several of their sites. Reccomend deletion. Mr Bound 23:36, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Good research, Mr Bound... I'm going to vote delete based on the same reasoning. --Idont Havaname 02:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Xcali 06:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

CUPE391

CUPE391 and CUPE 391 have a total of less than 500 google hits, and I wouldn't consider it notable. Article may have potential, but it reeks of advertisement. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 23:43, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Delete. User has also produced a vanity page. Eixo 00:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I left a note on the user's talk page about the vanity article. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Not an advertisement, but an first-person-plural POV entry on a single chapter of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Redirect (no merge) there, though I wouldn't oppose deletion, as this is not a likely search term. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CUPE is definitely notable; individual locals really aren't. Unlikely search term, so no redirect is really necessary. Vancouver Public Library already mentions CUPE391, so there's nothing to merge. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above logic. Vegaswikian 06:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can give a reason why this local is notable. -- JamesTeterenko 17:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'd probably rename the article CUPE local 391. The notability is borderline, but if someone wants to put in the effort to create a decent article I don't want to stop them. With some clean-up work, a few dates, and some history it could be an informative little article --NormanEinstein 15:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with TenOfAllTrades. There is nothing useful here that can be merged with CUPE. --Deathphoenix 18:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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