Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 18

June 18

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will Vernon

Delete. Probable vanity. Will Vernon is apparently the great-grandson of Edward Vernon, which is who this article is actually about. No notability asserted for Will, and descendants of notable people aren't inherently notable. No relevant information about Edward that isn't already in Edward Vernon is present in Will Vernon. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, grog is never a bad thing but vanity is. StopTheFiling 00:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per AиDя01D, and feel annoyed that I can't think of a decent pun on grog. -Splash 03:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete How is it relevant? Sonic Mew 10:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic.--Poli 02:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Frances Ransome

Delete. Vanity, does not assert notability. Tagged for speedy by Xcali, and while I agree that articles like this one ought to be speediable, currently they are not. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This is a very short article with almost no context, so is a candidate for speedying, article 1. Even if does not seem to be a test.-Splash 01:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Compared to the example given at WP:CSD, "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great", this has plenty of context. We know at a basic level who this person is; just not why she warrants an encyclopedia article. Perhaps this criterion needs to be clarified? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • We know she's in Exeter. That's it. Criterion is not "no context", but "little or no context", and this is certainly little. The criterion does need clarifying, though. Specifically, to allow speedy delete of blatant vanity as an expansion to patent nonsense. IMHO.-Splash 01:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then you might be interested in this discussion. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a speedy candidate, IMO. I'm one of those who disagrees with making vanity articles CSD candidates, but I agree that this falls under criterion #1. "He is a funny man" = "She is the daughter of"; "has a factory" = "She goes to college"; "his wife is great" = "she is studying X & Y." The trick is that this is a vanity article that's also an article with no content. Geogre 04:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I guess I should check in here and vote Speedy. --Xcali 06:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It has now been blanked by the original author, and re-marked as a speedy candidate on those grounds. However, Critera #A7 reads "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author." Even if you stretch-interpret the blanking to "mean" "requested for deletion" AND ignore the 'tagging' edits by other Wikipedians, it still fails the "provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake" test, making it not, technically, a speedy candidate, although many admins will delete articles in this case regardless. Thus, I still maintain that the speedy criteria still needs considerable expansion just to reflect common practice even before it can be expanded to provide any relief from the 100+ (and growing) articles/day posted on VfD. Niteowlneils 16:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to be very clear in saying that I fully agree that SD needs expansion. I always have agreed with that. VfD is more insane than ever -- over 100 articles a day -- so there is no question. I just think that "vanity" shouldn't be a criterion. We'd need to attack the obvious vanity article by another criterion than just its appearance of being about the author. Geogre 19:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I speedied it on the grounds that the author might have thought it was acceptable to create an article on herself, then saw it listed here and realised it should never have been created, thus making it speedyable under the "blanked mistake" criterion. I agree with you that this is not clear-cut and policy needs to be updated to reflect common practice, but this would certainly have been deleted anyway. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete both Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rick Nowak and Antonella M. Perucca

Delete. Vanity, does not assert notability.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Also Antonella M. Perucca, who is apparently Rick's wife. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not quite vanity, but not a sufficiently generally notable figure for an encyclopedia article. Geogre 04:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don Gummer

Possible vanity. Little or no content. Article fails to establish notability. Delete. Hermione1980 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination after rewrite. Keep. Hermione1980 16:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well, husband of Meryl Streep, and Google backs up the idea that he's a fairly decent sculptor. £10 says someone'll've written a good stub by the time vfd closes, so provisional keep on that basis (if not delete the useless substub). Dunc|☺ 00:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Dunc beat me to the punch. Ditto. DS1953 00:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if notability established, otherwise merge with Meryl Streep. Nice job, DS. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect unless expanded with content that establishes notability: Otherwise, redirect only to his wife. Geogre 04:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if someone manages a decent stub, otherwise redirect to Meryl Streep. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I was waiting for someone else to do it but I gave in and rewrote the article myself. DS1953 16:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very nice rewrite, DS1953. Quale 02:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done, DS1953. Capitalistroadster 00:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tyler Woods

While dunkball is a real sport, Tyler Woods, whoever he may be, does not appear to be connected to it in any way. Safe to say the info in this article is illegitimate. Denni☯ 00:18, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete vanity hoax. JamesBurns 04:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity or hoax (and I'd be against a novelty sport getting an article, too, so its creator is in double trouble). Geogre 04:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:58, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Stalin in the Russian Civil War

Violates WP:NOR - says as much in the opening paragraph. Article also doesn't seem to make much sense. Might be useful in future, but not in its current format. Delete or possibly redirect to Joseph Stalin. Hermione1980 00:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Joseph Stalin or Russian Civil War if original research is removed; otherwise Delete. -Caesar. 17 June 2005
• Delete since WP:NOT original research, or merge somwhere relevant if anything left. I also nominated another article by the same author for VfD on the same basis.-Splash 01:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure this is original research; it's summarizing source material, not creating it. There are format and possible POV problems that can be addressed in time. The topic is encyclopedic. Gazpacho 01:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - no, go read the article. It opens by saying: "Unpublished MA Thesis", and WP:NOR - the key is "unpublished".-Splash 01:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  Yeah, I saw that. If it were published (and by someone else), it would be a copyvio. NOR is a restriction on an article's content, not its history. Gazpacho 02:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  But: Original research is research that produces [...] secondary sources. [...] Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. which this clearly does. Particularly seeing as it's a Master's thesis.-Splash 02:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Mostly it's a brief canter through existing sources, so encyclopedic. Where he introduces his own ideas these should be deleted as Original Research, but that's not a reason to delete the entire article, which is of great encyclopedic value. There was a historical figure called Josef Stalin and he has been amply written about, and this article simply reviews those sources for the most part. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research. JamesBurns 04:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The current cited source is unencyclopedic and it lacked proper references. I have remedied this by wikilinking to Full formal listing of sources on Stalin in the Civil War by the same author. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are problems such as pov and source verification, but some of the material seems to be known: I agree with Tony Sidaway on this. The topic needs to be kept. I suggest a pov notice and cleanup. Bambaiah 12:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Doesn't really work as an independent article, and there really isn't a separate phenonemon called Stalin in the Russian Civil War. Perhaps the material should be merged with biography of Stalin, Russian Civil War, political consequences of Russian Civil War etc. Peter Grey 05:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete Kelly Martin 15:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Byron Watson

Appears someone added a speedy tag and then User:Muijzo disagreed adding a VFD tag but never completed all the steps. Don't shoot the messanger. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly not a CSD, but Googling "byron watson" "geneva convention" turns up zilch. However, this person may be notable for other reasons (sounds like a politician), though I can't find any evidence. Abstain pending further research... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be a hoax. Even if not, it's badly POV. Pburka 01:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as libel page: Prank/hoax. Geogre 04:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect VH1 CDC (talk) 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All Star Jams

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to VH1. -- Jonel | Speak 01:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH-1, someone needs to go play outside. Geogre 04:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH1. Postdlf 20:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-Political family members

No idea. Might be a candidate for speedy. What do people think?-Splash 01:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just so you don't all think I'm out of my tree for not voting in the first place: there was an outside chance that I might be missing an American political reference, being from the oher side of the pond.-Splash 04:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy would be nice. It borders on nonsense, but I'm not quite sure it makes it there. --Xcali 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think it's supposed to be a complement to List of U.S. political families. However, it has no context to link it to that article. Delete. Hermione1980 01:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an incoherent article; might be a potential indiscriminate collection of items of information. There are many non-political families with non-political family members. -Caesar
• Gee, can I get my name on this list? (joke) Delete, speedy if possible. SwissCelt 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why? Why would someone make this article? How could you have an article like this and not include 90% of the people in the Wikipedia? How can that possibly make sense? B R A I N E X P L O S I O N I M M I N E N T ! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted on grounds that it was probably a test. The contents were about Maxwell Perkins. Someone copied and pasted, probably seeing if it were possible to make an article and really have it stay. Geogre 04:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to VH1. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 18:02 (UTC)

We Are the Eighties

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to VH-1. I should point out, however, that all these shows are on VH-1 Classic, not regular VH-1. Geogre 04:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH-1. Absolutely nothing more can be said about this than the bare two sentences already there. Postdlf 20:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 01:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halo2sucks

Forumcruft. Alexa rank=463,996. nn. --Xcali 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per Xcali. Page says Halo 2 supporters are permanently banned for very small infractions, such as asking why the website was created or wishing its cause bad luck, so looks like we're out.-Splash 01:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the aboves. As well, the forum has very few posts, and has many subforums dedicated to giving out gamertags and talking about Halo 2. These people seem quite obsessed about the game and playing it, for folks who perma ban "Halo 2 supporters". Therefore, I submit that the forum and therefore the article is doomed to be nonsensical. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable forum. JamesBurns 04:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable forum. --Wetman 09:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 11:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable site and forum. Nestea 11:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DavidWBrooks 22:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Halo 2 -- While the website itself may not be a very large part of the Halo community, it is important to note that Halo 2 has effectively split the fanbase in half. Hunter Killer 22:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Halo None notable site advertisement. Jtkiefer 03:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Halo 2. --Idont Havaname 04:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 03:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn advertising. JeremyA 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - what JeremyA said.Enviroknot 04:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the page states that they want to have a place for discussion. I don't think that is Wikipedia's role per se. --billlund 04:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What everyone else said. -- Natalinasmpf 04:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what Billund said Billhpike 04:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Elfguy 20:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

VH1 Classic Current

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into VH1. We had to do something similar with the "radio stations" on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack. SwissCelt 01:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to VH1. -- Jonel | Speak 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH-1. This and the other shows our IP friend likes, are on VH-1 Classic only (gotta have satellite to get it in the US). Geogre 04:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Or digital cable. My digital cable service carries VH-1 Classic. (Mind, this probably has no bearing on the VfD, except that it might have a slight effect on notability.) SwissCelt 12:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

Rock Fest

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to VH1 -- Jonel | Speak 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect > VH1. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Metal Mania

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to VH1 -- Jonel | Speak 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH1. Postdlf 20:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Pride Rainbow Project

A youth group that wants to break a world record and make a political statement in the process. While I wish them luck, I don't see how a project that garners only 50 hits is notable. --Xcali 01:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator.-Splash 03:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: An announcement and rallying post, rather than a true article, although the author did a great job of remaining NPOV. We do wish them luck, but this is not the place for even noble local movements. Geogre 04:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Trivia. CalJW 18:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP. Scimitar 16:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gettone

Dictdef (and non English at that). Complete article is: Gettone means "token" in Italian (whether telephone or else). Propose Transwiki and delete. RJFJR 01:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki then delete -- Jonel | Speak 01:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 04:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This article should be more than just a dicdef. Gettone also refers to a specific type of Italian phone booth token that was used as a means of payment interchangably with (I think) the 100 lire coin. It's known as a typical Italian item even outside Italy. Martg76 09:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

• • I expanded the article a bit. Martg76 09:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep the rewrite. Italian phone booths are a good article topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm quite surprised it was known outside Italy, anyway I added a couple of informations. I know I can't vote hope adding a comment here is not inappropriate. Lacurus 12:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now that it's clear that this is a cultural phenomenon and not just a word that means "token". Good work, Martg76 and Lacurus. -- Jonel | Speak 14:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- cultural value. Gettone is also used in Toronto to refer to foosball, by the way. Larineso 16:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment- Maybe the title can be changed to Gettone Telefonico, sice gettone has another meaning (see above)
• Keep the rewrite.-Splash 16:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Italian (recent) history.--Poli 02:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable token. Israel used to use such phone tokens as well. Klonimus 04:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)

The Alternative

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to VH1 -- Jonel | Speak 01:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH1. Postdlf 20:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 (no consensus). Scimitar 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

X Internet

Neologism as far as I can tell. Gazpacho 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism that makes no sense. (The internet is accessible in computers, fridges, etc., but these are all means to access it. The current uses of the 'net and means of accessing them have as much to do with "extending" it as do the examples in the article, so making up a word makes no sense. Or something.) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I admit that I had never heard the expression, but a google search gave 157,000 hits, some linking to news about it. I personally find the term useless, but seems to have cultural background.--Poli 02:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, as per User:Poli. JamesBurns 03:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Poli. Karol 16:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd be willing to bet most of those Google hits are for something like "Mac OS X Internet Explorer," or "Me X Internet = Yay!," and such topics -- not the subject of this article. (One of the first results I found was of an ISP, actually.) Almafeta 23:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It has about as much "cultural background" as other PRish nonsense terms. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Bibliography and Historiography for Stalin in the Civil War

Delete and merge if any appropriate to Stalin. Admits to being "unpublished MA thesis" in first sentence, so is original research, which WP:NOT.-Splash 01:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to wherever Stalin in the Russian Civil War ends up. Gazpacho 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR, and all that good stuff. Hermione1980 01:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 04:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Karol 16:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect to VH1. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Pop Show

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to VH1 -- Jonel | Speak 01:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH1. Postdlf 20:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless ths specific programming block is notable for some reason (has aired for years or smthg). Karol 16:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to VH1. Some programming blocks are notable (Adult Swim), but most aren't. — Phil Welch 23:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Following the 22nd of June transwiki, i've changed this self-explanatorily to delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

Skell

Slangdef. Gazpacho 01:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia Wiktionary. Pburka 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Pburka, this is Wikipedia. Retype your statement if that was an accident. Sincerely,  Short Verses  ^(talk) 01:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Oops. Pburka 02:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. That's-a better. :) Sincerely,  Short Verses  ^(talk) 06:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm not sure about Wiktionary's desire for slang, so I won't foist this into the queue for transwiki. Geogre 04:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Paper dictionaries include slang. Wiktionary does no less. The Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion do not require that a word not be slang. Wiktionary's criteria are based upon attestation. Slang words can, and cannot be, attested just as non-slang words. this is a strong indication that skel and skell are attested words. Uncle G 21:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
    • I have incorporated the etymology found by Uncle G (talk · contribs) into the article. Pburka 13:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Feydey 19:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Transwiki to wiktionary.--Poli 02:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable slang dicdef. JamesBurns 03:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Au contraire, quite notable to anyone who's watched a police procedural set in New York over the last ten years. Transwiki to Wiktionary -- I don't think there's much that can make this encyclopedic. Haikupoet 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 21:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Robert Erspamer

Delete - Not notable, not encyc. Google returns a 26 hits, none of which appear to be this person. -Splash 01:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Probably a nice guy, but not notable. Pburka 01:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude. I'm sure he's nice and all, but he's not encyclopedic. Geogre 04:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable JoJan 20:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 02:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to VH1. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 18:08 (UTC)

VH1 Classic Soul

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming block. A programming block is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find scheduling there. Recnilgiarc 01:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to VH1 -- Jonel | Speak 01:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to VH1. Postdlf 20:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

Full formal listing of sources on Stalin in the Civil War

Complement to Stalin in the Russian Civil War. Delete, per WP:NOR. Hermione1980 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this one too, along with the rest.-Splash 01:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Stalin in the Russian Civil War might be usable, but this is too much. Gazpacho 01:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this along with the others. JamesBurns 04:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research- Caesar 17 June 2005
• Keep. Cannot be OR, as it's just a list of sources. Alternatively merge with Stalin in the Russian Civil War. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Stalin in the Russian Civil War, this is surely original research, so let the references have the same fate of the main article's VfD.--Poli 02:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

Headline Act

From the IP's other articles, I'm assuming that this is a VH1 programming term. This is hardly Wiki material, especially when this is all the article has to say. At VH1 there is a link to www.vh1.com. Users can find out more there. Recnilgiarc 01:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The article states that it's a program. Personally, I don't think every TV program is encyclopedic -- but I'm pretty sure most editors would disagree! ----Isaac R 01:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to VH1 -- Jonel | Speak 01:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless this specific programming block is notable for some reason (has aired for years or smthg). Karol 16:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 16:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

.ai

This dab page contains two entries, one incorrect, one nonencyclopedic. The incorrect entry states that ".ai" is top-level domain for Antigua. (It's actually ai.) The nonencylopedic entry refers to a filename extension for Adobe Illustrator files. (Wikipedia is not a general-purpose database.) ----Isaac R 01:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• We shouldn't have titles starting with a dot. Delete, redirect to AI. Radiant_>|< 01:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at Template:CcTLD? We have quite a lot of them. And that's not including the articles on filename extensions. There appears to be a lot of duplication here (ai telling us that it is an ISO country code, and .ai telling us that it is a CCTLD, which of course use the ISO country codes.) Isaac Rabinovitch is almost right, though. The dot preceding the label is, in fact, not valid without a preceding label, and so isn't a part of the name of the CCTLD itself. However, strictly, since it is a top-level domain name, and not a shorthand, there should be a dot following the label. Uncle G 02:32, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
    • Okay, good point. Never mind then. I do hold this is not particularly informative, though. Radiant_>|< 12:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I tent to agree about these article titles starting with dots. There seem to be dozens of them: Category:Country_code_top-level_domains. There is also a monster series template associated with them: {{CcTLD}}. Perhaps the whole category/member articles/template should be discussed together. (Somewhere other than VfD?) Personally, I have a hard time seeing how most of these TLDs have encyclopedic potential as individual articles. --Tabor 02:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and agree with Tabor, esp. considering TLDs.-Splash 02:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• It doesn't make much sense to delete this one alone. If you want to move all these pages to different names, VfD isn't the right forum to do that; there's no reason to diss Antigua while leaving .nz, .au, .tv, .uk and so on. Keep for now, pending agreement on all the articles together. And don't forget .com, .org, .name, .info, etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the Adobe Illustrator link, see .pdf, .rtf, .doc, .txt, .pst. It's a little late to try to prevent article titles starting with a period.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, like .com, and .ai is where people would expect to find it. Kappa 06:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- important ccTLD - Longhair | Talk 11:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Adobe Illustrator is a major product, but confusion over the file extension is not a common thing, and it's nothing like .com, .sys, or .exe. The top level domain is, if folks will read the nomination, incorrect. Geogre 12:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's still where people would expect to find it, so a disambig would be necessary. Kappa 13:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - at least until the entire matter of where top level domains are going to be. If you want to make that change start with something like .com - don't pick on tiny islands. Guettarda 14:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep NSR 14:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wahoofive. And you can add to his list: .bmp .htm .png .arc to name a few more. DS1953 18:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep that's part of a long list of articles about TLDs.--Poli 02:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wahoofive. .ai (for Artificial Intelligence) has potential to be a money-spinner for Antigua although unlikely to be as big as .tv is for Tuvalu. --ScottDavis 11:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 30 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Super Nerd Friends

Non-notable comic about a school class. Gazpacho 02:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I mean no offence, but this has already been speedied, so is a clear {{deleteagain}}-Splash 02:07, Jun 18, 2005

• And he/she just blanked this VfD.-Splash 02:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete gren 02:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please dont delete is a really cool comic and will post comic strips on the page. All clips posted will have jokes that can be reffered to by everyone.-Creator of Page pleese dont deeltete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (UTC)

The problem is it's not encyclopedic, there have to be notability standards, we can't just pick and choose what to add. gren 02:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as re-creation of previously deleted material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd go with userfy if the author was otherwise contributing to Wikipedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:05, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

The edits all come from an anon IP 152.163.100.11, which has been active lately but contributing to a few proper topics too. If this is the same person, they've had a brain transplant.-Splash 03:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable comic. JamesBurns 04:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:09 (UTC)

Wonderosity

A page about the name of a website. Vanity at best. Delete Andreww 02:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This article has a lot of deleticity!!! ----Isaac R 02:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Surely you mean deleterosity?-Splash 02:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, when I make up words, I make up my own words! ----Isaac R 04:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We should wonderlete it. -- Jonel | Speak 04:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Whoa, dude! Deep Thoughts! Delete. Geogre 05:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete maybe in wiktionary... but I don't think so.--Poli 02:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to stoner. Soundguy99 05:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Chris Rhoades

Delete, non-notable, non-encyc, Google knows nothing. -Splash 02:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed, fails the google test (No results for "Chris Rhoades"+"Biotic hazards"). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: nnanity, as they say. Geogre 05:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - let him play the sax, but not in wikipedia. JoJan 20:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even the band has an article.--Poli 02:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just a roundabout form of self-promotion Bornyesterday 15:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:11 (UTC)

Bleeding Purple

A vanity article about the authors podcast. Delete Andreww 03:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The page also refers to Wonderosity, which is by the same person, Leifh, and is also on a VfD. -Splash 03:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• This one, full of deleterosity is. -- Jonel | Speak 04:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 04:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, nor a podcast guide, nor a blog guide, nor a guide for Deep Thoughts nor a year book nor a Yellow Pages. Geogre 05:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity JoJan 20:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems more like ad to me.--Poli 02:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:54 (UTC)

Alex Hirsch

Non-notable offspring Denni☯ 03:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity per Denni.-Splash 03:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to fail Google testing. The first result is his website, but after that it's mostly mentioning other folks, many who are even less notable. Seems to have nothing particularily notable about himself, other than being born. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable for his own achievements at this time except giving head in prison for drug dealing. Perhaps redirect to Judd Hirsch or Judd Nelson or Judge Reinhold. Geogre 05:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Everybody is somebody's son or daughter. Judd Hirsch never married his mother so he's a bastard That's not a special achievement. JoJan 20:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable.--Poli 02:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)

HANH

Real group. Real song. Delete real fast? Denni☯ 03:20, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Speedily so.-Splash 03:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Really I mean, delete --Xcali 03:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being annoying (and not notable). Geogre 05:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am a music-illiterate, but an article with that few content adds little to wikipedia.--Poli 02:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Info easily included in a relevant article. --NormalAsylum 16:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)

John Zmirak

Non-notable blogger, and may he forever stay that way. Denni☯ 03:42, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 03:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable blogger. JamesBurns 04:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable JoJan 20:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable blogger. Not ever wikiedpia has room for an article for every blog! - DavidWBrooks 22:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems more like an ad to me.--Poli 02:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)

List of songs played at dances

So useless a list as to defy description. Denni☯ 03:47, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete This could be 90 kilobites long and nowhere near complete. Useless and unencyclopedic. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 04:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JamesBurns.Splash 04:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Howabout1. - DS1953 04:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This belongs on ITunes, not Wiki! Rocky
• Delete: It would be every song, eventually. Even Metal Machine Music will be played at some dance somewhere. Geogre 05:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Done it. (Not for very long, admittedly. . . . . ) Soundguy99 05:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair | Talk 08:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all of above. Nestea 11:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I've heard all sorts of music at school dances. This is never going to be complete, especially when you realize Wikipedia is an international effort, which means this should also include songs only known in specific countries other than the US (which I assume the author originated). Not all countries have proms. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to pleonasm. Delete. Radiant_>|< 14:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. List could contain every song ever recorded. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:08, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)\
• Keep. Useful and fully complete list of each and every song ever played at any dance. Ever. This must be why I hate dancing. -R. fiend 20:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm trying to think what sort of dances one would hear the songs Rock of Ages, Abide With Me, Te Deum, Jerusalem, Agnus Dei, Libera me, and Ani Maamin at. Uncle G 22:14, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • Okay. Every non-religious song could be listed here. And how are we supposed to find out what song some 100-student middle school in Arkansas played six years ago. Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt that every non-religious song could be listed here. Paul McCartney's We All Stand Together seems unlikely to have ever been played at a dance, for example, it being in triple time. Terence Trent D'Arby's As Yet Untitled doesn't even have a beat. Furthermore: What makes you think that this article requires you to find out what a 100-student middle school in Arkansas played six years ago? The only requirement, given the page as it stands, is that one be able to verify whether the song is played at dances, not whether it was played at a specific dance. There are plenty of references to pick from that make such verification exceedingly easy. Google Web turns up hundreds of lists of songs played at dances that one can use for verification. Here are just three:
      • songs played at wedding dances
      • Salsa dance songs
      • Mission Dance song list
    • If, as it appears to be, your objection here is that the contents of such a list would be unverifiable because it would be impossible to verify that a song listed was in fact played at dances, your objection is highly flawed. Uncle G 01:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Summary so far:
  • List could contain every song ever recorded. — False. We've already turned up several songs, possibly whole classes of songs, that have been recorded but that wouldn't be on the list.
  • Every non-religious song could be listed here. — False. Even some non-religious songs aren't songs played at dances. I've provided some examples of those, too.
  • We'd have to find out what some 100-student middle school in Arkansas played six years ago. — False. We only need to find out whether a song is played at dances.
• Uncle G 01:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Okay, you're right. All I'm saying is that while many lists on wikipedia cannot have all their items listed, this is the epitome of that. Also, as I said in my original comment, this is useless. Who would ever want to know if a song was played at a dance. I thought about that for a few minutes, and the only time I could think of was someone coordinating a dance. In light of your argument, I changed my vote from strong delete to just delete. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 02:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the Arkansas thing. What I meant was that there might be a song played at a dance that was played at no other dances. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 02:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-encyclopedic, and could get infinitely long with non-notable songs. --Idont Havaname 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Until the author has exhaustively checked every dance that has ever occurred and listed all the songs that have been played there. (Don't forget Hail to the Chief which is played as dances where the US president is) DJ Clayworth 05:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 15:50, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete. This would make a good website, maybe even a humor book (who in high school in the 90s didn't dance to "Oh What A Night" by Frankie Valle and the Four Seasons at least once per dance?) but it is not encyclopedic. Haikupoet 04:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Who in high school in the 90s didn't dance to Oh What a Night? Me :-). Delete Aecis 07:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - would extend to infinity to include every possible song, including religious ones because "dances" do not have to mean only school dances and the like. Have you ever seen a modern dance performance? Some dancers intentionally dance to music that was not written for it. - Skysmith 08:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insanity! — Trilobite (Talk) 20:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to vote delete on gut feeling, but I can't find good, solid criteria on which to base it. That's not to say this list doesn't have serious problems, as others pointed out. Are lists we find on the web credible references? Can we ever verify a given song was not played at a dance, in other words, is this list verifiable at all? If they are references, should we mention them in the list or can we leave it to the reader? As others have pointed out, is there any point to listing every song played at some dance somewhere? Is that knowledge? Any song can be played at a dance, what does it matter? You could be interested in popular music or dance music or even popular dance music, but a list of songs played at dances? What's dance music, anyway? Should we include gavottes? No? Contemporary music only? What's that, then? Come to think of it, what's a "dance", actually? And what qualifies as a "dance" internationally? JRM · Talk 21:02, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• I think what we have here is someone who vastly underestimated the potential size of the list. What it comes down to is that it's a pretty meaningless and overly broad category. Haikupoet 02:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:04 (UTC)

USDrunks.com

Non-notable website. Denni☯ 03:54, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 04:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. (If they're drunks, what good are maps?) Geogre 05:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:Less drunk than they are, and not a web guide.-Splash 17:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Community site- I agree that we should not list all sites but if they are free and they connect people they belong at this article. Y'all can debate the merits of the community site on Talk:Community site MPS 17:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this does not belong in Wikipedia JoJan 20:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - a redirect would just encourage more web owners, and we'll turn into Yahoo. The JPS 23:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Sonia Choquette

Please spare us articles on second-rate psychics. Denni☯ 04:07, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly not-notable or her psychic powers would have told her what would happen to the article. And, she's only known "internally", which is hurting my head trying to work it out.-Splash 04:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: She's known within. Since all are one, that's everywhere! I'm all for people finding their hearts desires (blood and oxygen), but she is not notable at this time. Geogre 05:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable unless proven otherwise. JoJan 20:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "Delete" - but I am sure Sonia already knows that --Porturology 12:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:07 (UTC)

Sole purpose

Best efforts could not find a Google hit. Denni☯ 04:16, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete garage band vanity. JamesBurns 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Rocky
• Delete - They may be famous inside correctional facilities, but outside they're not. JoJan 20:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Banana Productions

Vanity. Denni☯ 04:21, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity. Rocky
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Undisguised vanity. --Wetman 06:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Vanity. - Longhair | Talk 09:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another bunch of self-obsessed amateur film students with a superiority complex and over-estimated judgment of their own talents. The JPS 23:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable--Poli 02:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Independent film. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:09 (UTC)

No-budget cinema

Article seems to exist only for the sake of Banana Productions, nominated for deletion above --Xcali 04:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable cinema. JamesBurns 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This subject is already covered, and more completely, elsewhere.

Vote by user:Wetman

• Delete: Better covered in independent film, etc. Geogre 12:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to independent film then. Topic is valid and term is in common use. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to independent film.--Poli 02:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to independent film. --Idont Havaname 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  3 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

.lsm

Dab page that points to a couple of file formats that use the .lsm extension. File name extensions are not encyclopedic. ----Isaac R 04:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment .html .pdf, .rtf and others are redirects to the corresponding file format articles. This one just happens to be ambiguous.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There are all kinds of pointless redirects. It's hard to get them deleted because people have a "what's the harm" attitude towards them. Doesn't justify them, or explicit extension articles. ----Isaac R 05:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. Kappa 06:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Useful" is not necessarily "encylopedic". ----Isaac R 15:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Useful" in the sense of "useful for encyclopedia users trying to look things up". Kappa 17:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So anything that "encyclopedia users" (which is everybody) find useful should be included? That means everything. Which is not consistent with the "not a general-purpose database" rule. We include things that fit in with the encylopedia format, period. ----Isaac R 21:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Equating "encylopedia users" with "everybody" stretches my ability to assume good faith. See User:Dermax below for an explanation of its usefulness. Kappa 22:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LSM where they are already mentioned. NSR 14:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect per NSR. Radiant_>|< 14:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, useful. I dont get the point why this entry shouldnt be here. As a matter of fact, it just was a very useful hint to me since I was typing .ism in the search engine because I wanted to know what it stands for, and now I know. So what s the point of deleting it? Dermax 22:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • N.B. .ism is a different (and nonexistent) article, starting with an eye. The article under discussion starts with an ell. To my mind, this hurts Dermax's credibility even more than the fact that his account was only created today. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL another case where it's difficult to assume good faith. Anyway the argument is sound. Kappa 23:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the application/software related to the extension is notable, it deserves an entry.--Poli 02:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect per Radiant and NSR. --Scimitar 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Kappa here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:36 (UTC)
• Keep Normally I think this would apply under a dicterm for deletion. However, if other file extensions are considered encyclopedic, then what precedent is there then for this file extension's removal? I think the argument is in favor of keeping pending a little more info and linkage to other wiki articles. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 19:31 (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 speedy deleted as patent nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rævstokkmila

Patent nonsense, though it might have merit according to its discussion page. 80.111.96.99 04:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy That's the article's author making the nomination and calling it nonsense. --Xcali 04:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No, you misunderstand completely. I mean that we can learn to live together , side by side in perfect harmony. Keep the faith.

• Delete this storgputzy in the name of pulacity! ----Isaac R 04:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Rocky
• Strong keep! It seems none of you understand what Rævstokkmila means to Norwegians. The article could be better written (I'll rewrite it myself if needs be), but please don't delete it! 80.203.101.24 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article reads like the output of a program to generate random sentences, and lacks any meaning whatever. And as Xcali points out, 80.111.96.99 is the author and sole significant contributor. The equivalent article on the Norwegian Wikipedia, created at the same time and reading much the same, has been tagged as unencyclopaedic. This thus looks like a cross-wiki pattern of joke article vandalism. Speedy delete under CSD criteria G1, G3, and G7. Uncle G 08:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

John A. Dooley

He's not a very outspoken advocate as claimed. Google only finds about 200 matches for his name and wireless together (if you leave out the middle initial), and not all of those are relevant. This seems like vanity to me. --Xcali 04:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify - the original author has now asked that the article be deleted in his comment below. The article has only been edited by the author (apart from the VfD). This is thus speediable. Thanks to the author for their understanding. -Splash 03:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree...I submitted this guy because I had do a presentation on his work this past Spring and it was difficult to find complete information on him (he is a pretty young fellow). Thus, my hope was to get others adding content. First saw him lecture at MIT in the fall...and have found numerous articles/text citations on the guy. The bulk of his work involved technology for 3G wireless networks. His research resulted in a way of allowing limited amounts of RF spectrum to be recycled at many times the rate allowed by existing technologies. This is currently a very big deal among wireless telco providers creating next-gen infrastructure. Also, he is CEO of a New York-based company called Novatics. These are the basics of what I have on him. -B. Manohar Pseudo-signed edit by 24.190.83.190 (talk · contribs)

• Note: this statement is from the article's author. --Xcali 06:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I do not disagree in any way with the above author's statement, and I sympathize. The problem here is that Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source of information. Therefore, while we may get praised for being "leading edge" in technology coverage, that's a result of the blindness of print encyclopedias. We're supposed to be slow and conservative about coverage and to accept figures who have already demonstrated notability. That's a vague term, but in the case of living authors most people mean by that that the figure turns up quite a few hits via Google. Obviously, this leads to distortions (people mistakenly (IMO) vote to keep minor actors and pornographers while missing artists), but it is the best method we have. This particular person is not yet discussed enough by other sources for an encyclopedia article to be written that isn't original research. However, I, and I'm sure we, welcome the contributions and the desire to broaden our coverage. Geogre 13:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. I looked around IEEEXplore (which is authoritative) and 'Dooley' produced no publications that could be this guy if his field is wireless. To be notable in the field, you'll have published in an IEEE journal for sure. Note, without subscription access to IEEEXplore, you won't be able to verify what I say. It might help is someone else could back me up on this. -Splash 14:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I am impressed with the volunteer review process, and I think that the comments made here are valid. I study the effects of telecommunications on society, and my continual frustration is that there is very little information available on key innovators in the wireless field over the last thirty years. For example, individuals like Martin Cooper (effective inventor of the cellular phone we know today) are not represented in Wikipedia. This, I believe, is due to the wireless industry media, which has always been less than stellar. I can think of at least half a dozen otherwise anonymous individuals in the field whose individual contributions have had profound economic, technological and social impacts. Having said this, I share Geogre’s sentiments, and I now feel that the relevant administrator should remove this listing until there is more broad-based awareness of Dooley and/or others can submit a more comprehensive article. -B. Manohar (author of article)

That's impressively understanding of you. If you are happy for an admin to delete it, you could go to the page, and add a {{db|I'm the *'''Comment''' seems to be notable, but there is not enough material in the article to judge. If the author manages to expand, I would vote keep. For now, I abstain.

• I've added some additional data, if only for the archive in case this topic is revisited down the line. I found Dooley's email address in an article he wrote last year. However, I've not yet heard back with additional biographical information. Interesting character nonetheless. -B. Manohar (article author)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to VH1 Classic.  Grue  3 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

The 60's Generation

As with the other "VH1 programming block" articles, I recommend merge and delete --Alan Au 05:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: This one's not even a regular show. Geogre 13:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: Put on VH1 page Barneygumble 21:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly irrelevent. --Scimitar 22:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. BJAODN has been suggested, but only one has suggested it and the reasoning has not been based on the humor value of the article. Sorry about being mean and horrible, but I feel that I have to call this an outright delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:34 (UTC)

Nico Brancolini

Vanity biography. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Silly kid with a big imagination and a knack for linking his blog on his entry. Vanity biography, advertising, stub. Ghost Freeman | Talk 05:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Sn0wflake 13:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity JoJan 20:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don’t delete Nico’s article. It was his birthday present from a bunch of us (his friends). Nico is a dedicated, meticulous, and driven person who will likely run for president or be the next Karl Rove. Sure he isn’t important right now, but give him a few years, he’s one to look out for! So, please don’t delete our present to him.

I appreciate the honest answer, but Nico hasn't gained enough publicity to merit an article, and likely won't for a while. Creative present, but not exactly encyclopedia material. Ghost Freeman | Talk 16:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not BJAODN?

BJAODN might work best, this way nobody is upset when it gets deleted. Ghost Freeman | Talk 16:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 ambiguous.

Since the discussion, several people have labored to make the content of this article more intelligible. With those edits, I am going to call this as a "merge" decision. The destination of the merge is, however, unclear. I am going to temporarily point the article to Economy of China but please see my comments on the Talk page. Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Dates of Chinese Economy in Wartimes(1937-44)

I see no reason for this page to exist. There is nothing even close to this title anywhere else on Wikipedia. The English is terrible. Only one article links here. Just taking up space Woohookitty 07:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The writing is not proficient, but the reason for deletion is the unusable title, which seems to imply that the article is about the economy of producing dates. There are other places with the information, Economy of China being one, but this term is not going to be sought, so a redirect isn't called for. Geogre 19:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not written in the English language. -EDM 21:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge I guess the title should be Data of.... This kind of information could be useful in some other article about wartime, but not as is.--Poli 03:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename (obviously, but a VfD nomination blocks this), clean up, before we have this discussion. Bad English is not a reason to use VfD. See User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan for the state of play on this valued, prolific contributor. Clearly a later merge is an option. Charles Matthews 1 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)
• Merge to Economy of China or History of China or something like that... I tried to clean it up and to transalte it into intellgible English, but it still does not warrant an article of its own. -- Marcika 4 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
• Delete - Article makes my head hurt. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

Mark W. Wilson

Non-notable professor, unless the patents are significant. RickK 07:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- unless notability is established. - Longhair | Talk 11:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if the patents were notable the author would have listed them, and wikilinked to existing articles. The JPS 23:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete couldn't find any patent in the US Patent Office under the exact name. Superficial search for name components showed no useful result. Could change to keep if I had more data on the patents.--Poli 03:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. "Mark Wilson UCSF gets 32500 Google hits, which is not bad even considering the article-forking that many physicians get into! Physchim62 17:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

List of construction sites in Seattle

How is this possibly an encylopedia article? And what happens when construction is finished? RickK 07:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - What a waste of cyber space--Porturology 07:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, don't be an ass Porturology. There are lots of other lists like List_of_companies_based_in_Seattle as well as a huge List_of_racial_slurs. What is wrong with one about new constructions? It can be used as a reference. When construction is finished, it would be moved to the Recent Construction section and eventually deleted. - Author of the article in question

Comment: Unsigned comment above from 67.182.137.87 -- Longhair | Talk 08:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete useless and unmaintainable list. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't agree that it is useless, although, maybe not the best for WP.

Comment: Unsigned comment above from 67.182.137.87 -- Longhair | Talk 08:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Good luck completing and maintaining this. Gamaliel 08:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Grr. I would like to be a helpful WP member, but you guys aren't giving me constructive criticism. What part of the WP laws am I braking? I looked over all the pages trying to find something that would invalid this type of page, but I couldn't. If you would just point something definitive out (some reason why this doesn't belong on WP), I'd be more than happy to leave, but so far it just seems like people's personal opinions. - 67.182.137.87

• Here's some. An encyclopedia is not the place for lists of local information that needs to be constantly updated. That is a lot of effort for something of relatively little informational value and that really doesn't fit the mission of this project. Are there enough people who are informed and interested in this subject to perform that effort? Who will finish this list? Who will maintain it? Most likely this will remain the short, incomplete list that it is. Gamaliel 09:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Gamaliel. I was looking for some advice about why it wasn't a very good article, because I would like to be a helpful member. That said, I would work on the article as I travel around town, but this was all the info I had at the top of my head when I started. When trying to become a better WP member, I don't appreciate attacks from people like Porturology. That just frustrates me and gives me a sense that WP is full of elitists. I'm glad there are some on here who would help someone out. BTW, I have created and made slight modifications to pages under my username, but I'm not logged into that. -67.182.137.87

• Plenty of ways to help listed at Template:Opentask. Also things like filling in redlinks from these pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Category:Wikipedia missing topics, Wikipedia:Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and/or User:Jerzy/Red Links from LoPbN. More ideas: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles; also, helping patrol Recent changes and Newpages for vandalism, pranks, etc. is always helpful. I think many people would argue that the 'under construction' article falls under 'news reports' or 'current events' in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information--an encyclopedia is generally more oriented towards collecting information that is relatively timeless. Niteowlneils 17:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- unmaintainable forever changing list. - Longhair | Talk 11:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unmaintainable. Better to go visit the local planning authority. -Splash 15:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: In the case of lists, they need to be comprehensive and finite, and they should be of encyclopedic value. In this case, the list is phrased in the present tense, and construction sites are eternally changing. I.e. it is an infinite list (as the "present" keeps moving), but it is of encyclopedic value. You would be better off with "major construction sites in Seattle 2005," but you'd still have trouble with the information being found by anyone or linking it to an existing article. Geogre 19:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment But your suggestion would be a way to document major constuction projects in a given year. That could provide a way to trace the early history of these projects that can be liked to if you get an encylopedic building. The question is, Is this worth putting in a list? I'm not sure at this point, but I'm probably leaning against. Vegaswikian 07:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 03:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --W(t) 07:21, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Every building that isn't prefab was once a construction site. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 03:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Ren Reynolds

Vanity article, subject does not seem to be notable. Look at the user name of the author. Leithp 07:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain for the time being. I hate vanity. I can't stand vanity. But the Google hits for this guy run to at least two or three pages, though most mentions of him are in connection with some online articles or other. -Splash 15:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. My name gets a similar amount of google hits, but I know I don't deserve an article. The JPS 23:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)

Neary

Are we a Genealogy database now? Leithp 08:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no we are not.-Splash 15:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Genealogy. Geogre 19:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Eleraama

Not notable. Fails the google test miserably (not one reference!). Leithp 08:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. Unless someone can find an authoritative mention of this someplace. -Splash 15:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not FreshMeat.org. Good luck to them on their OS, but it is not notable at this time. Geogre 19:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable JoJan 20:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. Scimitar 16:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pulation square

This article makes no sense except to the brilliantly mathmatical minded like Neil Mallender, who do maths for fun in their spare time. Either dumb it down a little, at least explain what it does, and in laymans terms PLEASE (Im too stupid to understand complicated maths like that) - Big al kicks ass 09:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a perfectly fine math stub. Paul August ☎ 15:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article being too technical is no reason for deletion. By the way, I don't understand the article either, even though I do maths both for fun and for a living, and I doubt it can be explained to the general public. -- Jitse Niesen 15:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article can and should be made more accessable. I will work on that (someday). Paul August ☎ 20:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ridiculous; no one said category theory is easy, its not called abstract nonsense for nothing. Anyway, 95% of all math articles on WP are as complicated, or more so, than this. linas 16:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Big al kicks ass professes to be a 14-year-old on his user page. I wish to file a complaint; 14-years olds should not be VfD'ing math articles. linas 17:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I reported this VfD as an act of vandalism (by an extremely foul-mouthed newcomer). See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress linas 17:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a bit excessive. I have made more than enough blunders and twice this guy's age. :) Oleg Alexandrov 21:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree that the article is very complicated, and from a highly abstract area of math very removed from reality. Actually, as applied mathematician I should maybe wonder why people waste time on things like that. :) But that article is perfectly good math, and something being complicated is no reason or deletion. Oleg Alexandrov 16:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Overtechnicality is no reason for deletion.-Splash 17:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. I advise our overeager VfD contributor to try using a talk page next time. However, they're right that it really wouldn't hurt to eventually give some simpler explanation or examples. Deco 01:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Valid mathematical topic. JamesBurns 03:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable mathematical concept even if the numerically-challenged such as myself have difficulty understanding it. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Textbook case of why speedy keep should be an option. — Phil Welch 03:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I would view this as evidence that speedy keep is unnecessary. The first four comments, and notification on the relevant project page, took less than two hours, and have much the same effect as a speedy keep. Plus someone has promised to expand the page, which is a good thing. Septentrionalis 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 30 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Atiba Edwards

Seems like a good person, but I don't think the organization is encyclopedically notable, nor is its founder. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Leithp 11:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Google returns one relevant hit which is their website. -Splash 15:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable JoJan 20:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 30 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Ian Darkhelm

Fancruft, zero google hits [1]. Leithp 10:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not fancruft, because fancruft is of interest to fans. This is fanfiction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable fanfic. JamesBurns 03:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. Scimitar 16:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Encore Cartoons

An animation studio that animated three episodes of one show (not six, as the article implies), and nothing before or since. About a dozen relevant google hits, evenly split between forum posts asking who they are and mirrors of a Tiny Toons faq. Not notable. --Cryptic (talk) 10:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Surely there's some interesting story as to why they were only allowed to do 3 episodes. TTA had some interesting drama going on with the various studios it outsourced episodes to. Legendarily, Kennedy Cartoons were so bad that they had an episode sent back to them for re-animation, for example. Needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it should be expanded, and linked to from the main Tiny Toons Adventures article. Almafeta 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - Merged and redirected -- Jonel | Speak 15:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Internet_keyboard

What is useful in this article has been merged with Computer_keyboard Lmatt 10:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Then redirect it as the last and final step of a merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Casaplanet

Website, no Alexa rank, no inbound links. --Cryptic (talk) 11:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, blatant advertising. - Mgm|[[User talk:Machttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Casaplanet&action=edit

Edit this pageGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 13:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, it amounts to a single, external link. -Splash 15:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 15:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising JoJan 20:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Does advertising really need to come to VfD? The JPS 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or delete Hospitality Club as well, it is the same. Abrams 05:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the problem is Hospitality Club is notable and in a way reputable organization with tens of thousands of mebers, while Casaplanet seems to be at best your new startup clone of it, at worst some scam. Anyway, absolutely not-notable--Wikimol 12:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Wikimol 12:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikimol, you should not slander. How do you know that Abrams is involved in this site? --Felizbrasileiro 19:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Educated guess. What part of my comment do you consider slandering? I just explained why it's not the same. --Wikimol 22:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not know much about this site. I do make any comment about it then. About Abrams, well... vandalism... obviously. --Felizbrasileiro 13:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hospitality Club, which has, funnily enough, the opposite voting positions, i.e. all keep and Abrams: speedy delete.
  Ĩ would probably have vote keep if this whole thing didn't smell so funny... Guaka 12:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Who is Abrams? Something makes me think that he just wants to vandal and dirty the reputation of such or such site. If Abrams had something to do with this site, he'd be really stupid! --Felizbrasileiro 13:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Jonathan Ellis

It isn't an article, it's just some randominty. Perhaps if there was a description of his life, or what that game thingee is, but there isnt, so vfd. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 11:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He's not my God, he's not my enemy, he's nothing to me but someone who might be trying a WP:VANITY. SwissCelt 12:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are only three sentences, one of which is first-person POV. I doubt an actual article can be made out of it. Sonic Mew 13:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.-Splash 15:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus for deletion, so the article will be kept. There are a number of users favoring moving this content to other articles, but there is no agreement of where to move it. Therefore I am left with no choice but to keep the article as it is until agreement of what to do with it, which would most likely be merge with somewhere, but not deletion, is reached. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)

The Matrix character names

After reading this I wanted to clean out the bits that are speculation or original research, but then I realized that virtually all of it is speculation or research, or a trivial listing of synonyms. E.g. Trinity is asserted to refer to the female aspect of the Christian god (which is heavily disputed), Apoc is linked to Epoch because it sounds similar, Cypher is linked to Lucifer because it's spelled similar, and Switch is linked to a BDSM role. I'm sorry about this since I really like the film, but this article is far too devoid of actual content. Radiant_>|< 12:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Fascinating original research. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Feydey 19:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Might not be original research, actually. Look at this: http://www.matrix-explained.com/symbolism_in_the_matrix.htm. I'm still not comfortable giving this a keep, but neither can I give it a delete right now (which, I know, pretty much defaults my vote to keep). SwissCelt 20:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that page, too, is original research. Basically they put on each and every synonym and spurious etymology they could find. Allow me to quote,
    • 101 is a cool prime number. (so friggin' what?)
    • Maybe the Merovingian was a former One. (patently false, since he's a computer program as explained in the film)
    • Ander = "Man" (Greek) (also wrong, the Greek word is Andros)
    • "Thomas A." is probably related to "Thomas Aquin" a saint of the catholic church. (speculative)
  • Etc. Radiant_>|< 22:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While most of this is rubbish, there is enough factual stuff to make it worth keeping. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to The Matrix. I don't think that providing background information on mythological names qualifies as original research, especially when the name is established in Wikipedia -- those entries compromise a "Matrix List," more or less. By rough reckoning, about 40% of the list content is of that kind. I am not willing to vote keep, however, because this doesn't seem worthy of a separate article. Xoloz 04:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree w/ Radiant. What little verifiable/factual stuff exists should be or is in character's articles. No sources or references cited for the rest. Looking at what I can find about that "Like A Splinter in Your Mind" book, I think it's a strong possibility that the author(s) of the article are confusing the "Matrix" metaphors or examples used in that book as a way to introduce philosophical concepts (like "The Physics of Star Trek" (see Lawrence M. Krauss) uses ST devices and terms to introduce concepts of physics) with the thematic intentions of the writers of the film. Soundguy99 06:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, and 99% crap anyway. Proto 10:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to individual wikis for each character, if a page exists. Some characters will never be developed and removing this bit of information removes what little data is available for lesser characters, like Switch or Apoc. The movie directors acknowledged the patent symbolisms, some obvious, some not, most unexplained. However, these items are part of information about the movies and the characters. Interpretation can be whittled on a page by page level, other less important definitions can disappear with this page. Like everything else, a credible source or explanation should be given. (For instance, the use of the name "Morpheus" can be confirmed from sources as intentional by the directors and its origin from The Sandman comics). One less page to edit is cool, but don't eliminate the origin of names that can be verified or are too obvious to ignore. Spencerian 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move it somewhere, it's too fascinating to just toss it. Perhaps The Matrix/Meanings of character names, perhaps the talk page. Spencerian's idea is good too. Tualha 02:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep content, not original research. Merge the content to the character articles if this article cannot be kept. — Phil Welch 03:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not original research, it's useful information for Matrix fans. - Sikon 15:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 30 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Eliezer H. Hardjo

A CV. delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT self-promotion. If this could be made into a proper article establishing notability, I'll revise my vote.-Splash 15:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 15:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 04:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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, no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Danielle Egnew

Vanity --TheParanoidOne 13:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, except for her vanity. A number of Google hits, but apart from her own site, they are all for a porn star of the same name. -Splash 15:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know what Google search you did but I found a number of references to her besides her own web sites (and she has several). She has a sydnicated radio show The High Road. She is also covered in a number of gay sites, being a lesbian singer. Whether she notable or not, I'll leave up to people more familiar with WP:MUSIC. DS1953
• Keep, the google hits are about her, Pope Jane gets 3,700 more, she has a syndicated radio show, and she's been featured prominently in Music Connection Magazine. [2]. Kappa 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and expand. Host of a nationwide program, she has also written a number of articles for riot grrrl magazines in the past. JamesBurns 04:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete - material already existed on September 11 Wikipedia Project --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Robert Penniger

He died in 9/11, but otherwise his main accomplishment was being an engineer who loved motorcycles. Radiant_>|< 14:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it is sad that there is a cause for these articles at all, but nevertheless, WP:NOT a memorial for otherwise non-notables.-Splash 16:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 20:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tragic but non-encyclopedic. Send it to the wikimemorial. Gamaliel 20:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gamaliel. --Idont Havaname 04:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the September 11 Wikipedia Project at sep11:Main Page. It's not that we want to forget those that we have lost, but it's that there needs to be a proper place for it. Almafeta 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete - material already existed on September 11 Wikipedia Project --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Ruben Ornedo

He died in 9/11, but otherwise his main accomplishment was being a computer engineer for Boeing. Radiant_>|< 14:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it is sad that there is a cause for these articles at all, but nevertheless, WP:NOT a memorial for otherwise non-notables.-Splash 16:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 20:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but WP:NOT a memorial. --Idont Havaname 04:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the September 11 Wikipedia Project at sep11:Main Page. It's not that we want to forget those that we have lost, but it's that there needs to be a proper place for it. Almafeta 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Nguyen Khang

He died in 9/11, but otherwise his main accomplishment was being employed by the Pentagon after being a refugee from Vietnam. Radiant_>|< 14:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it is sad that there is a cause for these articles at all, but nevertheless, WP:NOT a memorial for otherwise non-notables.-Splash 16:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —Ryanaxp 19:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 20:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - he has a place on the web, but it's not in wikipedia. The JPS 23:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 04:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; WP:NOT a memorial for otherwise non-notable people. The Sep11 wiki is a better place for this listing. --Idont Havaname 04:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the September 11 Wikipedia Project at sep11:Main Page. It's not that we want to forget those that we have lost, but it's that there needs to be a proper place for it. Almafeta 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - He is the only Vietnamese American that perished from the September 11, 2001 attacks after he recieved political Asylum in the United States from Vietnam, he was a Political as an Anti-Communist. Bnguyen 30 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete - material already existed on September 11 Wikipedia Project --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Karen A. Kincaid

She died in 9/11, but otherwise her main accomplishment was being an attorney. Radiant_>|< 14:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it is sad that there is a cause for these articles at all, but nevertheless, WP:NOT a memorial for otherwise non-notables.-Splash 16:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A very small part of a very big event. Matjlav 18:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 20:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the September 11 Wikipedia Project at sep11:Main Page. It's not that we want to forget those that we have lost, but it's that there needs to be a proper place for it. Almafeta 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep by a vote of (6-3). Scimitar 16:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charles Edward Jones

He died in 9/11, but otherwise his main accomplishment was being assigned to a space shuttle flight that was cancelled. Radiant_>|< 14:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it is sad that there is a cause for these articles at all, but nevertheless, WP:NOT a memorial for otherwise non-notables.-Splash 16:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 20:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unnotable. The JPS 23:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - being a Space Shuttle payload specialist is kind of notable. Pburka 04:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and expand. Borderline notability. JamesBurns 04:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Astronaut still qualifies as "some sort of notoriety or achievement," says WP:NOT.128.62.107.14 03:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The astronaut corp is a very select group, and a person getting into it is a notable achievement, even if he or she does not get into space. Almafeta 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Astronaut. — Phil Welch 03:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep every Cosmonaut is notable. Klonimus 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep since there is not a sufficiently strong consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:31 (UTC)

Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks

This is a list of countries that had one or more citizen die in the 9/11 attacks. I see no encyclopedic value in this trivia; this is not the memorial wiki. Radiant_>|< 14:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination.-Splash 16:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason to delete. Could also describe each country's reaction, etc. Plenty of room for useful expansion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:48, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • The information you are suggesting can already be found in World_political_effects_arising_from_the_September_11,_2001_attacks and World_economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11,_2001_attacks. Radiant_>|< 18:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, no country's reaction to the deaths of its citizens is described on that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:04, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
      • {{sofixit}}. You propose that this non-article be expanded with that information; I propose that instead those already useful articles be expanded in that way. Radiant_>|< 10:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • The problem is that expanding those articles with that information would also require expanding them with this information, which is apparently trivia. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:01, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
        • This article is about the attacks, not the effects of the attacks. CalJW 18:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Feydey 19:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Wow... old article. Though, mention how many total foreign casualties there were in Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Nestea 22:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. JamesBurns 04:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 9/11 has its whole own wiki, which has probably got this listing somewhere. --Idont Havaname 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A fundamental and much overlooked aspect of the subject. CalJW 18:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Listing of nationalities of tragedies and terrorism is standard. Go look at Pan Am Flight 11, etc. There just happens to be so many people on 9/11 from so many countries that the main page would clutter. Barneygumble 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a short list, not an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 21:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Might be more appropriate in the Sep11 wiki, though. Almafeta 23:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest possible merge. I'm insulted and offended by the idea that non-Americans aren't listed in the same article as the American victims. Instead the foreigners have to be shunted off into their own forgotten page, no doubt just to keep the American list pure! What is wrong with you people!?! — P Ingerson (talk) 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a fundamental and much overlooked aspect of the subject. Might be more appropriate in the Sep11 wiki, though. Klonimus 04:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - aren't the "more appropriate in the Sep11 wiki" votes, votes to transwiki rather than keep? That's essentially what my delete vote was saying, too. --Idont Havaname 00:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

Persons missing after the September 11, 2001 attacks

Two people total are listed here, who I assume have been declared dead since this was all of four years ago. An article about current affairs gone by. Radiant_>|< 14:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it is sad that there is a cause for these articles at all, but nevertheless, WP:NOT a memorial for otherwise non-notables.-Splash 16:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Interestingly enough, someone has sent a "secret" to http://postsecret.blogspot.com/ which says "everybody I knew before 9/11 thinks I'm dead." Not a vote. RickK 20:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. JamesBurns 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 9/11 has its whole own wiki; WP:NOT a memorial; and this was four years ago, so I doubt they'd be alive if they're still missing. --Idont Havaname 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Damikester

Vanity, plus an article about an online pseudonym. --TheParanoidOne 14:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. You (Talk) 18:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Paul Evans

Delete, non-notable. Only claim to fame is working in a shop. -Splash 15:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 16:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete -- this lexicon should be for everything
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.75.187 (talk • contribs)
  • Wikipedia is not a lexicon, but Wiktionary is. However neither of them accept everything. Perhaps you were thinking of the chaos over at everything2? --Tabor 18:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A good point by Tabor. This is not Paul Evans the 1960s musician, Paul Evans from The New British Poetry, Paul Evans the Chicago Marathon winner, nor Paul Evans the contributor to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. This is Paul Evans, the purported manager of a games workshop in the U.K, business consultancy business owner, role-playing games player, and contributor to magazines. Read his autobiography, and his own list of more notable Paul Evanses. I'm not convinced that the magazine contributions satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 20:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep since there is not a sufficiently strong consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

Ang Mo Kio Secondary School Symphonic Band

A secondary school marching band. -- Longhair | Talk 15:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Move to the school, and cleanup. SchmuckyTheCat 16:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think there actually is a school page yet. — RJH 02:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep won the Gold at SYF in 2005. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a high school band. Gamaliel 21:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a promotional piece, not an encyclopedia article. --Carnildo 06:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway, or Move to the school's name to start an article, which I don't think exists yet. (Merge with school article, if it already exists by the time of action.) --Unfocused 16:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. — Instantnood 18:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. High school bands are not notable. --Idont Havaname 23:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Same with Unfocused. Keep here if an article on the page doesn't exist or merge if an article on the school exists (although i reckon that schoolwatch will come about and do a vfd on that school's article). Idon't Havaname, who says high school bands are not notable? in singapore, band, choir and drama groups are relatively competitive against their counterparts from other schools, because of the SYF competition. There are many of them with very high standards. Sandstorm6299 02:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete high-school marching bands. --Scimitar 16:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. removed promotional language-- Vsion 04:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vision. Also, I suppose non-Singaporeans do not realise that secondary school bands in Singapore are much more prominent on the national scene that their peers in many other countries. Every two years, secondary school bands fight it out for the SYF competition, and the winner (or finalist) gets to perform for the entire nation to see for Singapore's National Day Parade. Even national musical groups do not regularly get this level of publicity or prominence.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 05:43 (UTC)
• Delete. What's the big deal on a CCA? I do not even bother to talk about CCAs. Mr Tan 29 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Are you disputing the worth of this page, or of all CCAs?--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus so article kept. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Instructional design storyboarding

This is a tutorial for creating training courses, it is no way encyclopedic. Leithp 15:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Wikibooks, could probably be placed there if cleaned up. JamesBurns 04:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: this is an ad for Internetraining.com. Fernando Rizo 04:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I have removed the link to Internettraining.com in the meantime Hirzel 09:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Keep: For a Wikibook the article is probably too short. There is an article on storyboard for a film but in Instructional design storyboards are used as well and I think it is useful to have an entry. To adapt to Rizo's wish the link to Internetraining.com could just be deleted. As a reminder: encyclopedic means all-encompassing and why not give some details to a technique used in instructional design.? I agree that the text has to be rewritten somehow to reflect more the style generally used in WP. I think the content is useful, so I have started rewriting. Hirzel 13:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Kingdom Crossovers

Fan fiction. Leithp 16:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fanfiction, which it openly admits to being.-Splash 16:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 04:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)

List of fictional hero's

Delete unmaintable list. Every novel ever published would need to go on here.-Splash 16:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unmaintainable (and heroes is misspelt). Leithp 16:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: see Hero#People and characters traditionally recognized as heroes —Wahoofive (talk) 17:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 20:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 04:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought we had made progress in straightening out User:Allareequal, but I guess not. Looks like some of us are back on babysitting duty. -R. fiend 15:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jonathunder 15:53, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• 'Delete, not maintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 20:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by The Anome (content was: '{{delete}}{{VfD}}My Mother the Holy Spirit. Expression used by Jesus in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.') --cesarb 17:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MY MOTHER THE HOLY SPIRIT

Completing nomination by anon. IP 172.209.73.95, who said:

comon, it's moronic religous jibberish

IMHO, this is a clear speedy candidate, and I think that's what the original nominator meant.-Splash 16:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:21 (UTC)

Holly lewis

Vanity page. Leithp 16:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. It's unfair on the rabbit to advertise to the world that it's called Frumpy.-Splash 17:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• And Nicholas Maloney is her fiancee. Delete. -platypeanArchcow 04:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sexual harassment

While I'm all for policy proposals, this just isn't proposing much - it's merely the statement that "Users who have been harassed should receive condolences and users who sexually harass other users should be banned.". No evidence, no discussion, no voting. Plus it's already redundant with WP:NPA. Radiant_>|< 16:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with above, maybe send it to wikipedia:village pump (proposals). Overall Delete.Howabout1 Talk to me! 17:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I see no evidence of there being a problem with sexual harassment on Wikipedia. Perhaps if there were evidence of it, I might feel differently. Delete. Kelly Martin 17:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've heard nothing about any increasing problem with sexual harassment on WP. Even if it were, it would be covered under various other policies anyway, no need to create a new one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would voting "oppose" for User:Kelly Martin's request for adminship because she's female be considered sexual harrassment, or just bigotry? RickK 20:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bigotry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most likely a joke proposal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just expanded the article some, and also; this sounds like a good policy. Will anybody concur with me now? --SuperDude 19:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Concure A potentially useful policy if expanded Jtkiefer 19:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks already cover this issue from a policy perspective. --Allen3 ^talk 20:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Vandalism in the form of sexual harassment appears to being happening with increasing frequency on Wikipedia and a policy is badly needed." I don't believe the former and I'm not convinced of the latter, but aside from that: what Radiant and Allen3 said. No useful content beyond what we have already. "Users who have been harassed should receive condolences"? Come on. JRM · Talk 21:23, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete article while well intentioned is somewhat pointless and doesn't seem really needed. Jtkiefer 23:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Phil Welch 03:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ... Move to BJAODN — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Any true harrassment around here is already adequately covered by existing policy, and adding a specific one for sexual harrassment would only encourage the warriors of political correctness or radical feminism to make trouble in their attempts to force everybody into their brand of orthodoxy. *Dan* 19:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:36 (UTC)

Allan von Schenkel

I don't think he's notable at this point. Only 15 Googles outside of his own site. --Xcali 17:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable.-Splash 17:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Matjlav 18:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. (Should have been a speedy delete as reposted content). Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Allan von Schenkel

Non-notable, re-posted one day after prior deletion. Joel7687 4 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

• This is why we have the {{deleteagain}} tag. Uncle G 4 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:40 (UTC)

Frederick George Lindley Wood

There is no assertion as to why this person is notable, and I was unable to find any on a google search. I did find this [3], which appears to be the source of the information. Leithp 17:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. His nobility makes him somewhat notable. Matjlav 18:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. His father seemed to have been quite notable in politics, and that makes him worth a page, too. Matjlav 18:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability is not by default inheritable. If his father is notable, make him a footnote in that article. Radiant_>|< 19:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, being the child of a notable person does not make one notable. RickK 20:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a geneaology website. Article does not even attempt to establish notability. Gamaliel 20:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Birthdate + deathdate + parents + spouse + children. A classic Wikitree entry. Get thee to Wikitree! Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, and notability is not inheritable. Delete. Uncle G 21:05, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Keep. On a side note, I finally get to incorporate the Duke of Kintyre and Lorne as being mildly relevant to this! Yay! – ugen64 01:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That rationale makes no sense. How is Duke of Kintyre and Lorne relevant here? It seems entirely unrelated to this article's subject. Uncle G 10:49, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
    • He died when he was less than a year old. Obviously not notable. The only reason he has an article is because of who his parents are. – ugen64 04:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Gamaliel (talk · contribs) said. Pburka 03:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, agree with Rick. JamesBurns 04:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mapquest test

Flagged as a proposal, but it's a two-line piece stating that using Mapquest would be a good idea. No examples, no discussion, no real proposal at all. Radiant_>|< 17:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. List it along with the other proposals, and let it develop. We've had several geographically-related VfD debates lately (one on an international scale that I can think of was over Danmark (island)), so something like this would be useful. --Idont Havaname 04:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete policy substub. Gazpacho 03:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --Scimitar 16:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary as there are numerous sources that can be used to establish whether a places is real and actually exists. And the simple fact that something appears on a mapping source is not enough to warrant an article on every such place, so the proposed "test" would prove nothing. older≠wiser 22:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

SourcelightTechnologiesInc

I think the guy who made it is just advertising his own website/company. 4 results in Google. Cheesycow5 17:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity/Self-Promotion. Recnilgiarc 18:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT self-promotion.-Splash 20:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 04:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 15:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Derek Rae

540 Google results when placed in quotations. Non-notable TV personality.Recnilgiarc 17:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He was on the mic for one of the most famous soccer games ever played.
• Weak Keep. He seems pretty notable. Matjlav 18:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• VFD Withdrawn. Sorry. The article was a stub of a few lines when this was made. I guess his 540 results is a bit misleading. I'll go about this with less haste in the future. Recnilgiarc 18:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• You can't withdraw it, can you?
• Keep Try searching for his name +football instead, lots of results. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Now I'm confused. How does adding a search term generate more hits? Kappa 00:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That is odd, isn't it? Only the pidgeons know for sure... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This vote shows why putting a stub on VfD two minutes after it was posted is not a good idea... The author has obviously been putting a lot of work into this. DS1953 20:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just to make sure.-Splash 20:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable soccer commentator. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:01 (UTC)

Ayman Semmo

Selfpromotion by an illiterate (at least in English) contributor "The article contributes nothing to the advancement of human knowledge" is as kind as one could be about this contribution. It is a candidate for immediate deletion. Eilthireach 16:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A quick test shows 34 Google hits, many (all?) of which are WP mirrors or unrelated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, oh dear, oh crikey me.-Splash 20:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. None of his 20 books seem to be widely available. Pburka 03:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 04:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Igor (Frankenstine)

nn for own article, "Frankenstine" also misspelled. You (Talk) 18:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

In my langaude frankenstine. --Nicestpersononearth 18:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which language is that? There are other language Wikipedias, this one is the English Wikipedia and article titles should use English spellings with a few exceptions. You (Talk) 18:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete already an article at Igor, no need for this renamed version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to redirect. Nestea 22:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete do not redirect.-Splash 01:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jtkiefer 21:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cruchatiz me Captain!

Not worth its own article. You (Talk) 18:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If anything is not notable, this is it. (Should be Crunchatize, anyway.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic JoJan 21:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Superficial; not worthy of a whole article. --BurntToast 21:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But if it's a known catchphrase, make a note of it at Cap'n Crunch. Nestea 22:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Cap'n Crunch in case it is notable enough. Otherwise - or subsequently - delete. --Sn0wflake 00:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, ne and, if it exists, it's a neologism so goes on that basis too.-Splash 01:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not, IMO, important enough to merge into Cap'n Crunch. NatusRoma 02:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, almost speedy criteria with its lack of content. JamesBurns 04:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 merge with Between the Lions, which seems to fulfill both wishes, "doesn't deserve its own article", and "would support a merge if there's a good place to merge it". Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

Busterfield III

Not worth own article. You (Talk) 18:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and move to Barnaby B. Busterfield III. Would also support a merge if there's a good place to merge it to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Legacy class star destroyer

Ship doesn't exist in the Star Wars universe. The only site Google returned that had anything to do about this ship revealed that it was fan created. Kross 18:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete DJ Clayworth 20:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Kross 15:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GrimneMUD

This is nothing more than an advertisement for a specific MUD. Something like DikuMUD or CircleMUD is notable, these are codebases used for hundreds or even thousands of MUDs, but this is just a specific MUD running on modified Diku. Statements like GrimneMUD is set in a high fantasy society, and boasts a very active player base only confirm this as spam. CryptoDerk 17:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This VFD discussion was improperly formatted without a section header, so it was never noticable when it was posted back on the 24 May discussion log. Therefore, I moved it over to today's log. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just 85 Google hits, which isn't much at all for an online game. FurryMUCK, for comparison purposes, has hits well into the thousands. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This MUD is stuck in the... mud. OH I FAIL AT VFD JOKES. Nestea 22:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable MUD. JamesBurns 04:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

Martin Derewyn Smith

This looks very much like a vanity page. What has this guy actually done? The associated Monteray Speel by the same user also looks unreliable. JBellis 17:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This VFD discussion was improperly formatted without a section header, so it was never noticable when it was posted back on the 24 May discussion log. Therefore, I moved it over to today's log. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since non-notable and non-encyc. He's a research fellow, which is the bottom of the post-PhD academic pile in the UK. -Splash 01:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 15:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Palace on Wheels

Appears to be an advertisement for some sort of luxury train cruise. —Ghakko 19:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we are keeping train stations, it seems we should keep this train. It is one of only four luxury trains on government-owned Indian Railways. I rewrote the article to make it sound less like an advertisement, but it is a tourist train, so to describe it accurately is necessarily going to sound a little like advertising. DS1953 20:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unique train. Kappa 00:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since it doesn't sound very adverty to me (inclusion of a link is not an automatic advert).-Splash 01:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a luxury train. NSR 01:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite so that it doesn't look like spam. It has results near the top of Google's large (~230k) heap. (Though, having never heard of it myself, I thought the title was the work of Willy on Wheels.) --Idont Havaname 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable named train. Not quite as notable or famous as the Orient Express or the Blue Train but valid enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable luxury train. Klonimus 04:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Washington Beach

Delete neologism/local vanity; the nickname of a small area in Columbus, Ohio (my hometown 1977-2002) that doesn't appear to have any currency outside of a few users on a couple of online music-related message boards (such as donewaiting.com, and just as many people on that site appear to call it "Baja Clintonville", or SoHu for South of Hudson Street). The area the article describes is in fact just referred to by the masses as "north campus" (if anything), as it's nothing more than the non-distinct northern end of the largely uniform area surrounding the Ohio State University main campus. Postdlf 20:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand and move to Washington Beach, Columbus, Ohio. We have articles n lots of neighborhoods. RickK 20:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, and I've written more than a few neighborhood articles—it's just that this isn't a valid one. The name is not in common usage, and there really isn't anything that can be said about this specific area that is different from the larger surroundings. It's nothing more than the area where the Ohio State University campus fades into Clintonville. Postdlf 22:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, Postdlf has convinced me to vote delete. RickK 23:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student vanity. JamesBurns 04:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. Radiant_>|< 10:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've lived in this area for two years (where campus turns into Clintonville) and I've never heard it called "Washington Beach". Also, the fact that the name allegedly comes from Grand Theft Auto doesn't help its credibility as a legit article.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Steel Lily, Tow the Line, Argon Cola

Delete vanity band listing, and its nonnotable albums. No AMG entry for the band or its albums, and I could find no relevant google hits for the band name (most refer to the nickname of Eowyn, the Tolkien character, or about a type of material used in jewelry). "Steel Lily" + "Tow the Line" gets 0 google hits, [4], "Argon Cola" by itself gets 0 google hits.[5] In this day and age, a band or an album that has no internet presence cannot be notable or verifiable. Postdlf 04:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• '"Keep" Not True. i have a band and It's not on the internet, yet it still exists. ...posted at 04:26, 2005 Jun 18 by 208.191.105.216 (contributions)
  • Please see the Wikipedia:Vanity page. Rocky
• Keep. "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country" is a criteria. France Counts. ...posted at 04:37, 2005 Jun 18 by 208.191.105.216 ((contributions))
  • Vote struck through as duplicate—same anon as voted above to keep.
• Weak Keep.. Are you sure that merely not having an internet presence easily findable to means that it is not notable? I cannot speak for the notability of this particular band as I don't know anything about it, but it seems quite possible that there are bands that are not online. Is a band posting its own website, listing itself in directories, and getting SEO help or some friends to make vanity web links to its site so that it gets many search results the difference between notability and non-notability? -Mysidia 04:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's entirely possible that a real-life band doesn't get Google hits. So let's have some other proof then. -- Hoary 04:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it might exist, but I'd wager good money no one but its members care and so neither should we. How could a band that has no fansites and no albums, concerts or reviews even mentioned online possibly have made any impact beyond their own garage? Postdlf 16:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A vanity page--Porturology 05:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Music notability and band vanity are in fact immaterial in this case. The article cites no sources and (by Postdlf's search results) no sources can be found. Notability and vanity are immaterial if we cannot prove that these articles aren't simply made up from whole cloth by their author. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 20:40, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Delete all three as unverifiable. -- Hoary 00:34, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete all 3 as unverifiable.-Splash 01:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, garage band vanity. JamesBurns 04:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all unverifiable band vanity. --Scimitar 16:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

February 10, 2006 relisting

Claims three albums but I can't find anything about this band on google, if this gets deleted the album articles should go too. Ruby 01:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per previous deletion debate. At the least, notability no more verifiable now than it was then. All album pages and members' vanity pages linked from there should go too, per Ruby. --Kinu 02:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• This and all accompanying articles have been speedy deleted as recreations of previously deleted material. I have notified the author of WP:MUSIC and WP:DRV, so if he reads the first and is still convinced that the previous AFD was in error, he can make his case at the second. Absent undeletion consensus, these should be deleted on sight if reposted again. Postdlf 02:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:04 (UTC)

William D. Baker

Vanity about some kid and his egg dropping device. --Canderson7 20:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and, where I come from, this is {{nonsense}}.-Splash 20:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this article, in my opinion, is worth having because it is interesting. i would understand if it gets deleted due to lak-of-importance however this article does serve its purpose.(Vote by anon IP 67.80.40.235, same as last two edits to main article.)
• Speedy. Splash (talk · contribs) is right -- it's nonsense. Pburka 23:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not, however, patent nonsense, which is text that is incomprehensible or meaningless, and not text that is merely silly. Only nonsense that is patent nonsense qualifies as {{nonsense}}. Uncle G 02:10, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Crap. Postdlf 23:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

             ^owch^

• let it stay. it is not that bad to call it crap. And one does not have to be rude to get the piont across.(repeated vote by anon IP 67.80.40.235, author of article.-Splash 02:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC))

Comment, the anon IP in question has repeatedly removed the fact that it has voted repeatedly. It won't help, you know.-Splash 02:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Further, it has just removed the above comment repeatedly. Can we report him for vandalism now?-Splash 02:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

i did not mean to get ride of that part and i fixed it after i found i made that error and you keep earasing what i did to fix it which is here>>"let it stay<<<<repeted. It is not so bad were one should call it crap. And one does not have to be rude to get the piont across.(repeated vote by anon IP 67.80.40.235, author of article.-Splash 02:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)) "

• Strong delete agree with Candreson/Splash Jareth 02:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

sorry for bothering you guys but do you get paid for commenting on these articles

• Delete. As a side note, this is not patent nonsense and does not qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion under the current criteria. Kelly Martin 02:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well i can see the votes are in and not one other person here wishes for this article to stay but let me add one thing people spend time on these articles so one should at lease give the common curtsy or reading it carefully and giving constructive criticism or just maybe a small complement along with the delete vote instead of just insulting the writer.

• Delete to BJAODN. It's silly nonsense. --Idont Havaname 04:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense but not funny enough for BJAODN. JamesBurns 04:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, kid, this may be cold comfort, but I think it's a pretty funny account of a pretty funny experiment. I threw an egg off my high school's roof (two-story building) eons ago, with no safety devices, trying to prove chickens used to lay eggs while flying (I don't remember why I was trying to prove this). It landed safely, but it was thrown, not dropped, into grass. Other experiments from taller buildings onto harder ground resulted in Humpty Dumpty all over again. Your article isn't for Wikipedia, but you show plenty of promise in other areas. So don't be discouraged. Writers have to get used to being rejected. It doesn't mean what you've written is crap, even if you're told it is. That's only an opinion, not a proven fact. If you were to rewrite it to Wiki standards, it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining. And I think it's more than entertaining enough for BJAODN (which is not a diss in this case, at all). I say Delete, to go straight to BJAODN. --Mothperson 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. —tregoweth 11:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Max Rebol

Non-notable startup movie company in Austria, with no mentions on Google other than homepage and advertisements. Have yet to produce any full-length movies. Znode 20:40, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete This is simply a vanity and advertisement page, probably by an ambitious film student. Note to the relevant user: please don't waste your time by using sock puppets here. (I'm not saying you would — it's just experience when vanity articles appear on VFD) The JPS 20:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Znode Well, if you're interestet we have released a full length movie this May. it was even announced on http://www.uncut.at/graz/events/loft-beisser.php , a really famous event magazine here (since I suppose you re not from Austria, I'll believe you ve never heard of it.)

Anyway. I was trying out wikipedia for the first time today, and If you want to throw me out just go ahead. I just have to say, I'm quite disappointed of the ignorance of the wiki team. All the best, max

Max, we are not trying to throw you out of wikipedia. It is just that you and your projects are not notable enough for articles in the main namespace. I wish you well with your projects/ambitions, but they are simply not yet notable enough for an article; this is yet another amateur production. The lack of google hits implies that you are using wikipedia for publicity.

By the way, i reported you for vandalism for this edit. The JPS 22:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, non-encyc at the moment. Creation of a vanity page at Cyclops Arts doesn't help it's case either.-Splash 00:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Unfortunately this company has very little evidence of particular fame or success, so it has no real hope of an article at this time. Nevertheless I wish Max success with his projects and hope he continues to contribute to wikipedia on other topics. Kappa 01:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Splash. No notability yet. It doesn't help your case to have registered and made the first articles about Yourself and Your company. 01:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Feydey 10:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Delete self-promotion. JamesBurns 04:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stumbleuponable

Dictdef of a non-existant word DJ Clayworth 20:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary does not take entries for words that don't exist. The entire contents of the web site by this name are identical to this article. Delete. Uncle G 21:12, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Delete. --Canderson7 21:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy WP is not a web directory. This article exists only for the sake of the site mentioned, not the definition. --Xcali 21:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. -- CanadianCaesar 22:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since WP:NOT a dictionary -Splash 00:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not a real word, and WP aint a dictionary --Jiphex 22:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect, and it appears that Darkwing Duck is where most want this redirected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

Professor Waddlemeyer

Not notable. I'd say that this character was featured in only one episode of Darkwing Duck, but as a matter of fact he's never appeared in any; he was mentioned as being dead in one episode, and someone had a photograph of him, and that was it. Whoever started the article wrote the first paragraph mostly copying, word for word, from MultiversalOmnipediaAtlas; I wrote the second paragraph and added the stub template thinking that maybe he did play a larger role in the series, until I saw the MultiversalOmnipediaAtlas and found that that was all there was. I'm not sure how big a problem the word-for-word copying is, but this is a concern to me because in the article Taurus Bulba, I wrote most of the "Darkly Dawns the Duck" section, but someone wrote most of the next section once again copying from MultiversalOmnipediaAtlas. CanadianCaesar 21:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• How about a redirect to Darkwing Duck? ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 23:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• "Let's get dangerous" and redirect. -- Jonel | Speak 22:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If it is made into a redirect, a redirect to Gosalyn Mallard would be more appropriate, in my humble opinion. -- CanadianCaesar 01:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • She would be the most logical character to be the redirect target, but the Darkwing Duck article is about the show, which is where I think the redirect should be pointed. I'm fine with either redirect though. -- Jonel | Speak 02:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 01:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyclops Arts

Vanity Denni☯ 21:47, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity and publicity. See the VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Max Rebol about the same user. The JPS 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and for making two vanity pages at once. -Splash 00:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JPS. Also see Loft and Beisser, their alleged film. — Gwalla | Talk 03:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 04:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 21:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender.  Grue  3 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Appa

Information already on Avatar: The Last Airbender. Delete. --Daniel Lawrence 21:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — pretty much agree. Minor character in show; flying herbivore with a one-word vocabulary. — RJH 02:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 04:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Don't be so mean to minor characters! ChercherEccles 18:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --W(t) 18:36, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender seems best to me. WP:FICT basically says to merge such characters, and if this character already is in the main article I see no reason to not have a redirect to it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete as fork, per report of nothing to merge. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

Jesus/Rewrite

Fork of Jesus. And no, that phrase does not imply that the messiah may not use silverware... Radiant_>|< 22:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. RickK 22:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep More accurate version.RossNixon 02:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't do forks of contentious articles without a really good reason and lotsa talking on the talk page; spoons and knives, I'm not so clear on. humblefool® 03:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 04:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly rename one or other of the articles --ClemMcGann 12:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At one point, when the proposal to change to the CE date notation was being lost, I asked what would happen to other articles, such as Cultural and historical background of Jesus which were been changed. “They will be reverted” (to AD) was the reply. In the light of [[6]] that will not happen. That particular article may well be an excellent account of the history of Judaism from a Jewish perspective, but it hardly merits its title. A similar fate awaits this article. Unfortunate, and regrettable, but let us be realistic.--ClemMcGann 13:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and permit this proposed rewrite run its course. This should not be a subject of a VfD until such time as agreement is requested that this article should replace the current Jesus article. There is nothing, substantiated in the VfD proposal, about the rewrite in progress that indicates that it (the rewrite) is either POV nor a fork. It is, instead, an effort (and from what I've seen of it, in good faith) an in-progress attempt to reconstruct the Jesus article. At worst, in my own (disinterested) POV this VfD is in bad faith, at best it is premature. As it is, it is not an article, it is instead, as is quite clearly stated at the only actual article that used to point directly to it (until the pointer was removed on Jesus), an ongoing effort to rewrite the article in as unobtrusive manner as possible. Let the rewrite proceed as it will, and take up argumentation wrt thereto at such time as a proposal to replace the current argument therewith is proffered. Tomer ^TALK 09:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • <change vote>Merge any useful content with Jesus and delete. Any volunteers to sift through it?</change vote> Tomer ^TALK 00:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why can't the edits take place at the main article? --goethean ॐ 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or in the user space of one of the rewriters? — P Ingerson (talk) 15:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, since Jguk was the originator of this attempted rewrite, for reasons which he never made clear anywhere, except possibly in a comment at Talk:Jesus/Archive_17#Problems_with_this_article, and he claims to have left WP, its primary mover and shaker is not here to argue in favor of its retention. I'm convinced tho by the arguments that the main article should have been edited rather than this rewrite, that it is a POV fork, in light of a number of comments and edits made by Jguk, and that it coulda shoulda been undertaken in his userspace. I am, therefore, modifying my vote accordingly. Tomer ^TALK 00:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be improper to simply move it to Jguk's user space? --goethean ॐ 03:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be improper for an admin to do so, but since Jguk claims to have abandoned WP, what, really, would be the point in doing so? Tomer ^TALK 05:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, accoring to the article history, 15 editors have worked on it (although I didn't look at the extent of each of their edits). I think that preserving their work for later in an appropriate space is preferrable to deleting it. --goethean ॐ 14:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hence my recommendation to merge any useful information with Jesus prior to deleting the rewrite completely. Are you volunteering? Tomer ^TALK 16:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

No. --goethean ॐ 19:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through the article; the only things I found to merge were a few missing links, and a reference to the Trinity in the intro; I don't see any point in keeping the history for that. Ben Standeven 22:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This rewrite attempt looks close to abandoned.--Tznkai 15:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I was going to nominate this myself, but someone beat me to it...Ben Standeven 22:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 16:25 (UTC)
• Delete V1^t 4 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. This VFD debate has been affected by a number of entirely new users, some are perhaps sockpuppets. As for keep votes I have counted Nate (the author of the article is entitled to vote keep on it), Beginning, Unfocused and FCYTravis. There are eight delete votes and this will constitute a rough consensus. If anybody wants to go ahead and briefly mention this organization in the Bates College article, go ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Bates College Republicans

Another non-notable college political group. One or two sentences could bge merged into the Bates College articler, but do we need all of this trivia? RickK 22:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This group is one of the most active and influential in the State of Maine. It is more notable than many of the other political groups listed on Wikipedia. Just because it is a college organization does not mean it is non-notable, in many ways it makes it more so. It is also clearly a source of future Republican leaders. Nate 04:24, Jun 19 2005 (UTC)
  • Author of the article, whose only edits are to the article, this page, and other articles related to the same content. RickK 21:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think the article is well written, relatively succint and is of a notable topic. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a little though. Pete 04:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. RickK 21:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable group. JamesBurns 04:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as likely vanity. As a general rule, I don't think we want articles on ultra-local chapters of national organizations, no matter how "active and influential" they are in the state of Maine. RadicalSubversiv E 04:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article is definitely noteworthy. The group clearly has accomplished a great deal, is influential (and therefore notable), and has bred future local and national political leaders. Shorten the article maybe, but don't delete. NASCAR 04:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. RickK 21:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Let's not be too picky here. This group IS notable. If we have articles on Jennifer Wilbanks the "Runaway Bride" and other fad topics, then we can at least have an article on a political organization that although ultra -local is making an impact in its local community and beyond. Noah 05:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this VfD and to his User page. RickK 21:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Expand and keep. One of the more famous (infamous?) college political groups in the country. The article is in sore need of information on the more controversial incidents in their history, however. Unofficial affiliation with the John Galt Press should also be discussed, but that's minor. ~~ Beginning
• Delete vanity, not a notable group - every U.S. college has similar. CDC (talk) 20:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Every U.S. college does not have an organization of this caliber. That is why it is worthy of note. If we get this selective on Wikipedia, then there are whole host of other articles that need to go. Joseph 20:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this VfD and his User page. Seems to have an interesting depth of knowledge of US college political organizations for someone who professes to be from the UK. RickK 21:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per RickK or at most redirect to Bates College. -- Jonel | Speak 22:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The hamper of socks is regrettable, but I see no reason to delete the article. Unfocused 16:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of thousands of identical college clubs. They have done little beyond host the occassional prominent speaker. Gamaliel 19:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge a brief one-sentence mention into the Bates College article. Not notable. Kaibabsquirrel 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - On the iffy side of notability but just gets over the bar. --FCYTravis 09:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thanks again for making my case for me, sockpuppets. --Scimitar 16:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Backpacot

Possibly nonsense. Only Google hits refer to the Wikipedia article. Transwikied to Wiktionary. --TheParanoidOne 22:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Delete Celestianpower 22:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism at best --gren 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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. Scimitar 16:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims

• Delete The purpose of this Islamist article is to brainwash people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.202.156 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 Jun 2005

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; adding to today's log. --cesarb 22:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Factually inaccurate propaganda. Deeptrivia 23:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If there are clearly persecution of other religion articles why shouldn't there be any for Muslims. It is unfair not to include one about Muslims. --Anonymous editor 00:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. If this article were to be deleted we would introduce a systematic bias unless we also deleted Persecution of the Jews and Persecution of Christians as well. Andreww 02:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Why not, we've got similar articles for Jews and Christians. We could probably write a similar article for almost every other religious group, then categorize them under "pot-kettle-black". — RJH 02:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite As per previous vote, we have pages for other religions, I do however feel that the page could use a rewrite to make it conform to NPOV and styling standards.

• Keep and Cleanup. Notable religions merit articles on persecutions against them; sadly (or fortunately, I guess, depending on POV), every notable religion has some history of serious persecution. Xoloz 04:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup: Since other articles like Persecution of the Jews and Persecution of Christians are here, no reason to delete this. A little rewrite may be required though. --Ragib 06:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Just because something needs work is not a reason to delete it. It's a valid topic. --Fastfission 06:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. Part of a series. - Mustafaa 19:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG DELETE Highly POV resulting in propoganda with it being too strong POV and factually inaccurate to allow rewrite. For example, it discusses "Muslim persecution in Spain" without even mentioning the Muslim invasion of Spain or the long campaign of warfare the Muslims used to conquer and convert the pennisula. An armed response to an invasion is not persecution! It cannot be logically equalled to say, the Holocaust were a peaceful ethnic minority were made scapegoats and killed.Similarly, "Muslim persecution during the Crusades" - The Crusades were an armed response to the Muslim persecution of Christian pilgrims. While the Crusaders slaughtering Muslims in Jerusalem was wrong, an action like that is more like total warfare, not persecution. That's like saying the massive bombing of Dresden, Germany in WWII, was persecution? Barneygumble 15:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • German scholars do sometimes suggest that Dresden was unnecessarily brutal. Though I disagree, a discussion of the issue, in NPOV form, would be valuable and thoroughly encyclopedic, IMO. POV problems with the article are not a real for deletion, only cleanup. Xoloz 06:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Atlant 15:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep POV content is a reason to edit, not VfD. Saswann 16:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sensitive topics should have the best and widest information available about them. Then people can make a decision for themselves. —Seselwa 21:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Persecution" is a valid scholarly topic since about the 1970s or early 80s theres been a lot of research done on it and much available material to draw from (none of which is cited here). Stbalbach 22:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV vandalism magnet. JamesBurns 08:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Islamist playground. This article is going to turn into an unmaintainable POV fest. Klonimus 04:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Factually incorrect. Confuses persecution of muslims with conflict with muslims, war with muslims, defence against muslim invasions, etc.
  • Unsigned comment by 70.105.188.134. Xoloz 06:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 16:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bad taste

Non-encyclopaedic. Little scope for expansion. --TheParanoidOne 22:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain if expanded; otherwise, Delete, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- CanadianCaesar 23:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept in aesthetics and humor. Kappa 01:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Thanks Kappa, you hit on why I would abstain, because it could be a notable article; in fact, I believe it has been a bit expanded since I voted. In my opinion it could benefit by having a history and examples, and it probably needs a redirect from poor taste. -- CanadianCaesar 01:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: No encyclopedic potential? There is an entire Encyclopedia of Bad Taste. ISBN 0060921218 and ISBN 0060164700 --Tabor 02:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. -- CanadianCaesar 02:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mike H 02:59, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; lots of potential. Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable topic with potential. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Goatse Klonimus 04:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 16:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aviva Chomsky

Being a relative of someone notable does not make them notable. Delete. --Daniel Lawrence 23:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Seems more notable than an article on minor Star Wars characters. Professor with published books and papers to her credit. :) — RJH 02:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - published author. Pburka 04:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Has written one award-winning book and co-edited two others (that I can find). Probably some articles as well. Professor at a (as far as I can judge, and I may be unfair) relatively obscure American college. Borderline as far as academics go, but nevertheless more significant and notable than most of the professional baseball players considered worthy of Wikipedia articles. Weak keep. Uppland 06:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable professor. Publishing a book is just part of her job; many, if not most, history professors will get a book publication from a cleaned up version of their doctoral dissertation. CDC (talk) 20:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have made a notable contribution to the study of early US involvement in Costa Rica. Kappa 21:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep award-winning author. Good to see that someone in that family has actually earned their recognition. Gazpacho 03:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable author even though she hasn't worked as hard to earn her recognition as other members of her family. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Eminently notable. —Seselwa 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Appears in the Directory of American Scholars, the Gale Contemporary Authors series, and the St. James Writers Directory. Gamaliel 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as per article creator request. khaosworks 05:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

General Jesus

Oblitertron gets 0 Google results. "General Jesus" gets 980, but none related as far as I can tell. Recnilgiarc 23:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ten-year-olds make up this nonsense. Eleven-year-olds put it up for a vote, and so everyone has to vote on it. The joke is successful: grown-ups made to run about and waste time. Thanks. --Wetman 01:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain the reason you get "general Jesus" results is that there are generals with the first name Jesus, there's no reason to imply that that because "oblitertron" get no results it therefore doesn't exist. Perhaps the entry wasn't clear, it didn't specify that the comic was only a strip in a local Stoke-on-Trent fanzine and not a national thing. It does exist I assure you.

comment posted by 62.252.224.15 (talk · contribs)

• Delete. Characters from local Stoke-on-Trent fanzines are not notable. — P Ingerson (talk) 10:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. The creator of the article has asked for it to be deleted. --khaosworks 05:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:42 (UTC)

Danny Sveinson

Non-notable 12-year-old rocker. RickK 23:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Non-notable? Not an international mega rock star type by but worth more research before deletion. See e.g. some press coverage or his bands website. Possibly info on all band members and the band itself should be merged into one place? (Unless and until they become interational mega rock star types.) Andreww 01:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteCome back when you are notable --Porturology 13:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the 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 (no consensus). The last unsigned vote was by User:Peter Grey and is counted. There was agreement that the article needs some cleanup though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:45 (UTC)

Fairfield community theatre

Are community theater groups inherently notable? In my opinion, no. --Xcali 23:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment they can be. Some do notable productions on a regular basis. Vegaswikian 07:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Preserving a historic building seems to be something notable. However in case this article is kept, it needs a lot of cleanup. Vegaswikian 07:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete some such groups could be encyclopedic, but I see no evidence that this one is - lots of buildings can be "historic" in some vague, undefined way. Nothing about important, influential productions, which might make it notable. CDC (talk) 20:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-i feel you people are being too harsh. This is just some kid who wants to feel like he did something special. You do this and delete his page then you are deleting his dream. What does it matter if this is in here. NO one is going to look at it, who cares you people shouldn't be so quick to micro-manage. And it doesn't matter if it doesn't bring any "influential" things to the table. no one is going to look at it other than the people who have no lives and just go around looking for these pages. Let it go, and continue on to another page, because this was a dieing persons last wish, they wanted this exact script put up on the web and kept there, so why are you going to kill that persons wish? jiber 20:58 19 june

• Keep but Clean-up: Some material is encyclopedic. Minor details that duplicate the content on the official site could probably be deleted.

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.

whoa...the Fairfield Cmty Theatre is a not a theatre group and is thus different than the group in Fairfield that *is* a theatre group (performances, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.139.246 (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dean Richards / Drummer

Non-notable drummer for a 12-year-old's band. RickK 23:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — fails to establish notability. — RJH 02:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:MUSIC.--Poli 03:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 04:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matt Grose

Non-notable bassist for a 12-year-old's band. RickK 23:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — fails to establish notability. — RJH 02:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteaccording to WP:MUSIC.--Poli 03:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 04:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rod Burn

Non-notable vocalist for a 12-year-old's band. RickK 23:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — fails to establish notability. — RJH 02:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:MUSIC.--Poli 03:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 04:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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