This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. --Golbez 05:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement. --Sn0wflake 01:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing more than a promo Kaibabsquirrel 01:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. -- Infrogmation 02:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this may be notable enough. There's a book, some notable churches are running it (All Souls Langham Place) and its been around for ten years. Keep. DJ Clayworth 02:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeleteSpam/non-notable/advertisement/miniscule stub--EatAlbertaBeef 05:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Banish, Excommunicate and then Deleteℬastique▼talk 05:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep verifiable info and NPOV factual description - how is this an ad? Alpha has been huge in UK churches (even televised). Its spin-offs from (of which this is the most popular example) less so. But even then, this course has had thousands of participants, and is being used in hundreds of churches of all denominations, in the UK alone. It is now going global. All Souls Langham Place, where it originated, is perhaps the leading Anglican Conservative Evangelical church in the UK. Plenty less notable articles exist in WP, which is not paper --Doc(?) 13:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only information to speak of is "It is similar to the Alpha Course" and a link, that is what makes it an ad (Link to a site advertising a product, without substantial content): the page lacks sufficient context to be a stub: other courses similar to Alpha can of course be discussed in Alpha Course. It may be true that Christianity Explored is significant, but the reader would not know and be able to verify that from reading the article and its links. --Mysidia 17:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If the subject is significant, but the article does not explain this, then the normal approach would be to keep the article until it is expanded. DJ Clayworth 15:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - There seems to be a lot of Churches taking part and a book etc. Groovy site too lol but that's not the point. Notable enough in my eyes. Celestianpower 14:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete patent nonsense and an ad. ConeyCyclone 17:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new user today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 19:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough religious program with 14,200 hits. [1]Capitalistroadster 20:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. The number of relevant google hits is far fewer than the 14,200 mentioned above. Lots of those are false positives which is not surprising given the common words used. When restricted with the words "course" it falls to 7,000...and even some of those are false positives. Tobycat 20:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertisement. Postdlf 21:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a significant and influential course in UK churches. The article needs expansion/cleanup, but could be very useful. I'd be willing to put some work into sorting the page out if it is kept. --pode 10:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are no ifs in this situation. In case you are going to do something, you are going to have to do it now, like so many have in the past. --Sn0wflake 19:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen(talk) 22:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This list is unmaintainable. Right now it just seems to be a list of a few games, which bears no connection to in-game music at all. PC game music would have to be the actual music in a list, and not just the games, and that is impossible to achieve. Aside from that, theres no great interest in maintaining the list, with only a few anons popping up now and again to add or remove a game. Its also vaguely POV. Hedley 00:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. "PC games with outstanding or memorable music" is too subjective to warrant an encyclopedia list. Kaibabsquirrel 02:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but I hate most list pages, so what do I know? ----Isaac R 03:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Utterly impossible list. PC game music, eh? So that would include King's Quest I? That would include the shareware Monopoly with its 4 tone roll that I used to play? Besides being inherently POV and never comprehensive, it's just not a topic. Geogre 03:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unencyclopedic. --FCYTravis 03:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete pointless list that is un-encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete In general, I fail to see how lists are encyclopedic or useful. --Xcali 05:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete This doesn't make sense. The list is not encyclopedic. Who wants to have an unencyclopedic list in a encyclopedia? Does not seem to be true. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --RonH 07:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Entirely POV. Nestea 15:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointlessness abounds -- Joolz 16:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Most of the elements in the list actually link to other articles. This list could use some work, however: wikifying composer names, for example, could transform the list from a dauntingly unmaintainable "list of PC games" into a top-level reference for learning more about relatively prolific composers of PC game music. (It would also create a criterion for inclusion of a game in the list.) --Dachannien 16:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete its pointless and POV filled. Melvis 16:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 20th edit, 13 of which are VFD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 22:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keepit seems useful.ConeyCyclone 17:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and almost all edits are to VfD. Kaibabsquirrel 20:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't see this becoming NPOV. --W(t) 17:22, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete POV, unmanageagle, not encyclopedic Tobycat 20:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think a merger would be much good. The list is still not NPOV and unreferenced. A NPOV sub-section could be good, but the content of this list isn't. Hedley 20:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think this kind of lists are very important. Why? Because if somebody is interest in game music, it may be a hard task to find new interesting songs. If you want to find new good PC (or other format) songs, you do not find a list like this from the Internet (there are some charts for C64 and NES but not for PC or Amiga or some smaller machines). So Wikipedia can offer a list that gives good ideas for anybody interested in this kind of music. Without this list a person is quite lost since there are so many games and it is hard to know which ones might have interesting music. There is a danger of subjectivity in this list, since anybody can add his personal favorites. But with most of titles we can see, that they contain a music of relatively high quality and thus the problem cannot be so serious (the list is much better as it is now than no list at all). Sure the list is not POV, because there are common opinions about these kind of things. --User:Jarkka Saariluoma 15:32, 22 Jun 2005 (GTK+2)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a long block of text about evolution, but it's in the Wikipedia namespace, and it's in Spanish, not in English. Under those circumstances, this should be deleted. Bratschetalk5 pillars 00:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Words like migrações seem Portuguese, and an experiment with Babelfish translation suggests that it is Portuguese... and that the article is about the history of tattooing. Darwin comes in because of a passage in "The Descent of Man" in which he says "Not one great country can be named, from the polar regions in the north to New Zealand in the south, in which the aborigines do not tattoo themselves." "Procurando" apparently means "searching for..." It does not seem like a bad article. The Portuguese Wikipedia's article on Tatuagem is just a stub (with a nice photo). Dpbsmith(talk) 00:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not about evolution, and it's not in Spanish. It's an article in Portuguese about the origins of tattooing. And it's a Copyvio of this and this. Uncle G 01:05, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Bummer. Now I have to go back and fix the note I left on the Portuguese Wikipedia's "Assuntos da Communidade" page. I thought they might want to have a look at it. Dpbsmith(talk) 01:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 18:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable web comic. Alexa rank of 642,713. Metal Gear Solid fanfiction (in other words, they're somebody else's characters). -- — Gwalla | Talk 00:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep (Weak)- Yes, it is no Penny Arcade, or Megatokyo, but is it non-notable enough to be worth deleting and trashing everyone's work? Remember, we're not pressed for space here like a paper encylopedia. --maru 02:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not encyclopedic. 1) Will it be a puzzling topic a reference work will need to address? 2) Is it something anyone will seek in the future? 3) Does it represent a pioneering or influential artwork? I get "no" to all three. --Geogre 03:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Geogre, I have to ask: where did you get those criteria? They don't resemble any of the crieria for webcomics I remember ever hearing about. --maru 03:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They're my criteria for articles, all articles. I've been voting on VfD since before the first web comic showed up here, I believe, and all artworks have to answer the same questions, IMO. If anything, we should be more strict about web art, as it is by its nature far more ephemeral than even vanity press publications. For me, an artwork should be either first, greatest, or influential, and it should be something that appears in alien contexts (i.e. something mentioned elsewhere and by someone not in the web comic business) so that we will have a need for explanation. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about video game music or sculpture: the subject is not notable enough for encyclopedic treatment. --Geogre 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Low Alexa rank alone is enuf, but also hints at the more detailed reasons. Niteowlneils 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. As Geogre says, the notability bar for webcomics ought to be pretty high. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This entry will probably bring the search up by next week... --ℬastique▼talk 05:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question: Are you saying that the page rank boosting that occurs when someone writes a Wikipedia article should be used as justification for the Wikipedia article? --Geogre 14:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. --JamesBurns 05:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that the above user was created 12 June 2005, and has voted "keep" on everyone of the (many) VfD that user voted on. --maru 20:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noted 37 'keep' votes within 7 minutes. That's pretty quick evaluating. :-) Tobycat 20:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, in order to prevent Bastique's reasoning from coming to fruition. RickK 22:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn fanfic. -Sean Curtin 07:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. --DoubleCross 08:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable; vanity page Polynova 01:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability, likely vanity. Note: "Espen Moe" gets 668 web hits on Google, but at least the majority of the top ones seem to be someone(s) else of the same name. -- Infrogmation 02:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Great name for a future "The Simpsons" episode, but just some dude who makes animations. Vanity page. Geogre 03:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete: I know the name, but presumably only because I live in the area and any local who does anything gets a disproportionate amount of coverage here. - Ar 15:16, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete its a vanity post! Melvis 16:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 18th edit, 11 of which are VFD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 22:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete who the hell is this guy? ConeyCyclone 17:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account was created less than an hour before this vote. Kaibabsquirrel 22:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 05:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This chap seems to be non-notable - the IP (which resolves to balliol.ox.ac.uk) who created it also added vanity entries to several pages (mostly adding the names of recent students as notable figures), and created Babiker Hassanain, also on VfD. As it is, it amounts to "He's Australian. He has a scholarship and a good degree. He has a college post.", which is vanity and not much more... Delete. Shimgray 01:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, just in charge of a residence hall. Bratschetalk5 pillars 01:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Apparent good prospects for a promising future are not encyclopedia worthy in themselves. -- Infrogmation 02:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: He seems to be a dorm president. He may achieve notability soon, but not for this, I'm afraid. Geogre 03:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but keep his application on fileℬastique▼talk 05:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete its a vanity post! Melvis 16:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 17th edit, 10 of which are VFD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 22:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Note, there are allegations of sockpuppets being used here. However, the consensus is still to delete even when all supposed sockpuppet votes are discounted. JeremyA 01:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DeletePerson of very little importance Spotteddogsdotorg 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Googling John Ogden comes up with two web pages from his TV station mentioning this Ogden. Not notable! Hohokus 23:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 18th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 21:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Toasthaven 16:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 49 edit; Toasthaven's first ever edit was a VFD vote. Kaibabsquirrel 21:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable person of zero intrest! Melvis 17:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 8th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 21:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Mid-market station, so it's not exactly WJCL or something. However, he's just Arnie Pie in the Sky for this station. The article gives us no reason to suppose him more than a routine worker. Geogre 03:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 05:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, why so delete-happy? ℬastique▼talk 05:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just because someone is on TV in one city on one station doesn't mean that they are "widely recognised" and "well known" even in their own city, let alone their own country. They have done no national TV work, so they are still not notable, which is why I still say Delete! Spotteddogsdotorg 14:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not pass WP:BIO. Neither a "widely recognized entertainment personality" nor a "well-known entertainment figure". --Smack (talk) 05:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since when are traffic reporters notable? platypeanArchcow 20:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough. Philadelphia isn't exactly the backwoods. --Unfocused 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yet another frivolous VFD nomination no thanks to User:Spotteddogsdotorg and his/her multiple sockpuppets. Kaibabsquirrel 21:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have no sockpuppets. Spotteddogsdotorg 03:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Sure. Uh-huh. Kaibabsquirrel 05:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Yo – Spot! Don't forget to go over and vote to delete Roger Moss! --Mothperson 15:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment What is your problem? I have no sockpuppets and I am not going to take your bait! --Spotteddogsdotorg 17:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 20:58, 15 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no vote. Need to wait longer than 2 weeks. Woohookitty 06:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I've only heard of him because I live here. Not notable enough.--Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
Also, the edits I made to the archived discussion were to stop this from showing twice on the July 3rd VfD page Contents menu. Please don't hurt me. Thanks. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
Speedy keep. This just survived a VFD a couple of weeks ago and is not eligible for another VFD at this time. Sanction User:203.98.57.97 for bad-faith VFD nominations intended to WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
I agree with sanctioning user 203.98.57.97 for above reasons. However, my vote regarding the article stands. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
Dude? Why is this guy in two places, I like him on the list of WCAU peeps. Can we put him there? I am thinking that you would say something like Speedy Merge to do it? Will that do it? PhillyDude! 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
User's 11th edit, account created 1 July. Edit history looks like yet another of the multiple sockpuppet accounts playing their little disruption game with the East Coast TV station articles. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
Oh, no - they're BAAaack. Hi guys. --Mothperson 3 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
PhillyDude! and 203.98.57.97 both :( The Spotctopus doesn't quit does it? Kaibabsquirrel 4 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus. For those interested in vote count, I find 7 clearly "good" keep votes, and 9 clearly "good" delete votes. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Marginal advertising, little content, no reasoning for why this person is signifiant. All local weathermen do the weather from a viewer's yard, sooner or later. Geogre 03:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 03:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- nightly weekday appearances on television make one notable. - Longhair | Talk 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not pass WP:BIO. Neither a "widely recognized entertainment personality" nor a "well-known entertainment figure". --Smack (talk) 05:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Appears on local television only, and only on one channel. How many other weathermen for this channel have articles? I notice there's a Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz one as well. Average Earthman 07:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I would understand if he was like Janice Huff and did weather on the Today show, but this guy is on some local station and isn;t of any notewortyness. ConeyCyclone 17:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created less than an hour before this vote was cast, suspected sockpuppet, user's 15th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Regardless of how large Philadelphia is, a local TV weather hack on the station for 2 years is not notable. Local TV personalities change jobs frequently and are rarely notable. Quale 21:00, 15 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.
Strong, Speedy Keep for integrity of VfD process; renomination too soon. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:30 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 22:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Mid-market, but this looks like a dump from the station's website. It is a fact, not an article, and has therefore no content. When it gets to "you can see him," we're in advertising trouble as well. Geogre 03:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 04:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not pass WP:BIO. RickK 22:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, significant enough. ℬastique▼talk 05:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not pass WP:BIO. Neither a "widely recognized entertainment personality" nor a "well-known entertainment figure". --Smack (talk) 05:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't see a local TV personality as being notable in most cases. --Xcali 05:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Never seen him on TV, never heard of him. Not important as only a small amount of people can actually watch him on TV and I know I am not one of him since I don't even get his channel! ConeyCyclone 17:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 17 edit, account created less than an hour before this vote, suspected sockpuppet. Kaibabsquirrel 22:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article is still a stub, so it does serve its purpose. AdamTheHun 15:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete what purpose does it serve? There is nothing notable about this guy. Grue 14:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Philadelphia broadcast area is large enough that "notable there" is "notable enough". --Unfocused 16:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Local TV news hacks are generally not notable. Quale 21:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I am fairly new here and just stumbled on to these deletion pages (this is my second one!) but he doesn't seem that noteworthy, as most local TV personalities are - not noteworthy that is. They are like tires, very easly swapped and basically identical! UncleFloyd 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen(talk) 22:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Person of very little importance Spotteddogsdotorg 18:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Do we need every damn airhead anchor from podunk's bio here? No! Hohokus 23:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 9 Jun 2005 and mostly used for VfD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 00:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Local TV gal in small market - not notable! Melvis 17:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 31 May 2005 and mostly used for VfD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 00:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete WHO? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 23:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. An actual informative article of a large city (Philadelphia is not podunk) tv anchor might earn a weak keep from me as mostly harmless, but the definition-like stublet does not. -- Infrogmation 02:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: A fact, not an article. As for the notability of news readers from mid-market cities, I, personally, would not think them tremendously significant, as they change rapidly and move even more rapidly. A local institution in mid-market media might be alright. Geogre 03:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 04:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. RickK 22:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:BIO. Has "a total audience of 5,000 or more" as an anchor for an NBC affiliate in a city with a metropolitan population of nearly 6,000,000. -- Jonel 23:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The person is the consumer alert reporter and is an anchor, not the anchor. At local stations, just about everyone anchors for some amount of time (the weekend anchor, the weekend daytime anchor, etc.). Geogre 02:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This person is the anchor of the weekday 5 p.m. newscast. -- Jonel 03:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, significant enough. ℬastique▼talk 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not pass WP:BIO. She's neither a "widely recognized entertainment personality" nor a "well-known entertainment figure". Nobody outside Philadelphia is likely to have heard of her, and I'd guess that many residents of the city wouldn't recognize her name. --Smack (talk) 05:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Television personalities from major cities are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 05:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't see a local TV personality as being notable in most cases. --Xcali 06:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be notable enough for me. And she would be "widely recognised" and "well known" in Philadelphia. Leithp 10:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just because someone is on TV in one city on one station doesn't mean that they are "widely recognised" and "well known" even in their own city, let alone their own country. They have done no national TV work, so they are still not notable, which is why I still say Delete! Spotteddogsdotorg 14:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Asa Aarons wannabe in a small city big deal. ConeyCyclone 17:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created earlier today and mostly used for VfD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 00:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is from the same user who writes about many New York City-based tv news personalities and executives, but derides those from "lesser" stations in major markets. And by looking at the nominator's reasoning, I suppose everyone knows who Diane Doctor is. ErikNY 18:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT What the above user calls "New York City-based tv news personalities and executives" are nationally known people who meet many of the WP:BIO criteria or are seen nationally on programs. If we use ErikNY's reasoning we should just ignore people like Peter Jennings and Roone Arledge would fall into that category. The broadcasts of the various New York televison stations are seen through much of the United States, the Carribean and Latin America, unlike Ms. Davidson, who is only seen in a very small area by comparison. Also, in the case of say Jim Vance or Sue Simmons who are pioneering African-American news anchors, so they would warrant entries, but Ms. Davidson a thirty something airhead blonde cookie cutter anchorette. She doesn't need one until she becomes more notable or moves on to a national broadcast. Spotteddogsdotorg 23:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. You may argue that she is a "Well known entertainment figure", but being known in one city doesn't seem to do that. Toasthaven 22:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:BIO. It's the Internet! Keeping this item costs nothing and may be helpful
Keep. Philly is a big market; notable. Kaibabsquirrel 00:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Added information about her Mid-Atlantic region Emmy Awards. Maintain my keep vote. -- Jonel 03:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Anchor and host in a large city. Notable enough. Sjakkalle(Check!) 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish sufficent notability. Gamaliel 06:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article is still a stub, so it does serve its purpose. AdamTheHun 15:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The Philadelphia broadcast area is large enough that "notable there" is "notable enough". --Unfocused 16:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pressure to dilute WP:BIO is sad, but perhaps inevitable. The size of the Philadelphia market is irrelevant as local TV news hacks are generally not notable. They change jobs frequently and have no cultural significance. Typically they are entirely interchangable. Quale 21:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I am fairly new here and just stumbled on to these deletion pages but she doesn't seem that noteworthy, as most local TV personalities are - not noteworthy that is. They are like tires, very easly swapped and basically identical! UncleFloyd 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 05:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Previous nomination resulted in a keep; however, Camilla Hall never had a VfD tag. Because of this, I am renominating it. No vote. --cesarb 02:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Symbianese Liberation Army in a section called #Slain members. There is some slight historical interest in the biographies of the SLA members, but I very much doubt that the members will be sought by their names. Geogre 03:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - member of notable criminal/terrorist/whatever group and had minor, but notable role in that group's violent demise. --FCYTravis 03:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with the SLA article. Hall is non-notable outside the SLA, thus, the article is non-notable outside of the SLA article. Fifelfoo 04:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, bios are better separate. Kappa 04:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, significant enough. ℬastique▼talk 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per previous vote as member of famous terrorist group. Capitalistroadster 05:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Significant figure in the movement. JamesBurns 05:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Merge with Symbionese Liberation Army. I believe its better to describe the SLA members within the SLA page. An An 07:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I am inclined to think she should be kept, but note there have been inconsistent results on SLA members, as some have been redirected (eg. James Kilgore). Of course, since Angela Atwood et al., were kept, I guess consistency is already impossible. Xoloz 07:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I guess if consistency is impossible, she might as well stand-alone. This is longer than many stubs, so I don't see reason to merge it. Xoloz 07:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Significiant biographical data in the article. Share_Bear
I just want to comment on this idea that the article contains significant biographical data. A birthdate of 1945, having three dead siblings, being an uncollected artist and lesbian is not encyclopedic in itself. The set of 1945 birthdates is great. The set of people with three dead siblings is great. The set of being an uncollected artist is great. The set of lesbians is great. None of these sets are inherently encyclopedic. The intersection of the sets is also not encyclopedic. Fifelfoo 03:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One might argue that being an SLA member makes her notable, and thus, "the intersection of the sets" embodied in an SLA member makes the other information notable (it might be useful in studies of comparative criminology, psychology, etc) Xoloz 06:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as merge and redirect with Symbianese Liberation Army. That is her sole source of notoriety. She should be discussed in context. The article has been virtually unexpanded since 2002, leaving me skeptical that the article will ever be expanded past stub status. Rossami(talk) 12:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep she is a historical person. ConeyCyclone 17:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Person of (minor) historical significance. Pburka 00:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen(talk) 00:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article can be expanded to describe the changes that license plates have undergone in the past century. The article was just created, and there hasn't been much time for completing the entire thing yet. I think this is a worthwhile article to keep, and we shouldn't rush to delete this page. Absecon 59 03:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This seems as if this user created this entry to provide cover for the Historical Mississippi License Plates which seems to be created to show off his collectionMississippi licence plates. So my Delete vote still stands, now adding vanity into the mix. If you want to show your plates off, other than illustrating a point, get your own website. Spotteddogsdotorg 14:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sure it can be expanded, but so can US and Canadian license plates. Let's not split that article until we have to. ----Isaac R 03:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is much information in this article that does not appear in US and Canadian license plates but this article should be merged into that one. -EDM 03:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article is better on its own and I suspect will be expanded considerably. US and Canadian license plates is already at 15K and should continue to cover the current situation and link to this history article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge back into main article. I see no reason to delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. This article and the related one on Mississippi look to me like somebody's project that will eventually expand to cover all states/provinces. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Kaibabsquirrel 16:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge into main article. Melvis 16:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 16th edit, 8 of which are VfD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 21:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, at least until it can be determined whether there will be enough interest in the subject to expand it into a full project. It was just created yesterday, and the article author took the time to visit the VfD and make a comment. --Dachannien 16:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is a page like this already. ConeyCyclone 17:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and almost all edits are to VfD. Kaibabsquirrel 20:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and merge. Hohokus 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 9 Jun 2005 and almost all edits are to VfD. Kaibabsquirrel 20:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I disagree with you here. The initial contributor spent half an hour [3] just last night adding more info on periods from 1977-present for Historical Mississippi License Plates and I see no reason why others would not add information they find to this article as well. There is interest in historical licence plates. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I doubt anyone but him cares. And if it took him half an hour to write out a bunch of years and load a few photos plus a handful of paragraphs he's not going to finish this article any time soon, much less the 49 other states, 13 or so Canadian provinces and territories, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. There's potential for a viable article there I suppose, but I'd like to actually see it before I vote keep. -R. fiend 02:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a deadline to finish nor should the initial contributor be required to do all the work. Having the article will encourage others to add any bits of info they have. If you believe a viable article is possible but concerned about it, perhaps you should add something like a {{CleanupDate|June 2005}} tag. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Kelly Martin 13:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I can't find that any such song actually exists. Google finds next to nothing. K1Bond007 02:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: If verifiable, it's still no more than a fragment of a substub. No point in merging something this questionable. Geogre 03:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep: good article Chubby Chicken 03:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn, unverifiable. --FCYTravis 04:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. Average Earthman 07:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable, non notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. Pburka 00:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 05:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Minor subtopic of a subtopic of an article that should be merged with another article. Spotteddogsdotorg 02:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep These articles are useful for other users to see how state license plates have individually changed designs over the past hundred years. I think this is a worthwhile article to keep, and we shouldn't rush to delete this page. Absecon 59 04:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This seems as if this user is going to use it to showcase his collection of Mississippi licence plates, and it also looks like this was the reason he created the History of US and Canadian license plates entry, so my Delete vote still stands, now adding vanity into the mix. If you want to show your plates off, other than illustrating a point, get your own website. Spotteddogsdotorg 14:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting... I actually got the idea to create this page after seeing the image of the current Mississippilicense plate that was uploaded by Spotteddogsdotorg onto the page for the state of Mississippi. I've included it on this page, and my hope is that with the addition of other images of plates and information from people with knowledge about them, we might know more about the history of license plates and license plates designs. I did not create this site for vanity purposes; I merely hope that this could be a collaborative project among many Wikipedia users. In fact, I don't have any more images of Mississippi plates to put on this page. Absecon 59 22:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The history of state licence plates is encyclopedic. If you had wanted to merge the articles, why didn't you just do it? DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: If the nominator did merge the articles, we'd either need a redirect (necessary only if the article title will be searched) or to preserve edit history. Otherwise, there would still be a VfD vote. It is a mistake to fork each state's license plates. The granularity is far too great. Therefore, I'd say delete, partially to send the message that such forking is a bad, bad idea. Geogre 14:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There can and should be articles showing historical license plates for the other 49 states too. Kaibabsquirrel 16:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Interesting, if incomplete, list. Bad faith nomination by someone out to WP:POINTSchmuckyTheCat 16:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Not at all a bad faith nomination. The article itself should be deleted for its vanity. RickK 22:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be no need for this, its not a license plate encylopedia, now is it? Melvis 16:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 15th edit, 7 of which are VfD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 21:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 19:40, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 20:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Votes have always been 'keep' and have been in rapid succession. 37 votes in 7 minutes.Tobycat 20:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there is a page about US and Canadian license plates and it belongs there if anywhere. This is a very minor subtopic of a major topic and is Toasthaven 22:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 60th edit. User's first ever edit was a VFD vote. Kaibabsquirrel 05:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep'. Trivial, but verifiable and of historic reference interest to some. -- Infrogmation 03:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete if not turned into something worthwhile very soon. Right now about the only encyclopedic part is "The state of Mississippi began requiring its citizens to register their vehicles and display their license plates on their cars in 1912" which could easily be mentioned elsewhere. More than 3/4 of the space of the article is taken up by listing off years with no addtional information (how is 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918... encyclopedic?). A little of the info on post '77 plates may be salvageable but right now it's mostly grandular subtrivial facts on the colors used. This one's in danger of becoming mostly a collection of pictures. -R. fiend 05:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Several people are interested in license plates, and the topic is encyclopedic enough. (The Encarta for instance, includes a picture of the current licence plate in each of their state factboxes) Sjakkalle(Check!) 13:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All I see here are just a lsit of years and a few photos. However, what we can do is inside each State Infobox on here, we can add a section for the license plate photo and we can use that. Plus, I do think there should be an article on US license plates in general, but I do not think each state has enough information to get their own article. Zscout370(Sound Off) 18:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting, verifiable content. --Centauri 01:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 05:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Aside from the obvious grammatical problems and the fact that most of the information is random (Delta Music?) All of the information currently on this page is included under the entries for American slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, etc. This could be an interesting page, I guess, but it seems like it will always be redundant. If anyone has useful content to put here do it, but otherwise I don't see why we need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvis21 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and expand. Andrew pmk 04:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Topic is obviously important, although possibly too broad for a single article. Cleanup and Expand works for now. Xoloz 04:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Cleanup and Expand. Amazed we didn't already have such an article. -- BD2412talk 05:08, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
This is an extremelly important topic that deals with events that have shaped the culture of the entire United States. This could potentially become a very good article. Expand and Cleanup--EatAlbertaBeef 05:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep cleanup and expand. Potential for encyclopedic article here. Capitalistroadster 05:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Cleanup and expand -CunningLinguist 09:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Rename to Racism in the US. "Race relations" is just an ephimism for racism :P Project2501a 20:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, "race relations" is not a euphemism for racism! RickK 22:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
"Race relations" is not simply an euphemism, but the term is sometimes used as one in some contexts. I think an argument over the semantics of this could take forever, and is probably of little value until the article is cleaned upXoloz 04:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep: Valid topic. Needs additional info concerning history of political compromises whereby blatant civil rights inequities were allowed to fester, contributing to the cultural phenomenon of ingrained racism in the South. Ombudsman 21:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep, Cleanup and expand, the topic is very important . Falphin 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I oppose the move. I don't see whats wrong with the title Racism in the United States. Racial relations in the Southern United States is a much broader topic than what this article will cover. Falphin 15:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, expand, and move to Race relations in the United States (or southern United States) which I believe is a better title. -- Joolz 02:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concur with BD2412 since racism is especially common in the south; even today. --SuperDude 02:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even though the need for a cleanup is obvious, it's certainly a topic deserving an article of its own. -- Captain Disdain 03:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep — valid topic, but I have no issue with a redirect as suggested above. Shouldn't actually be the southeastern U.S., even though it is commonly referred to as "The South"? — RJH 16:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Texas? This huge, slaveholding, Confederate non-Eastern state is the valid reason for maintaining the common name. Xoloz 05:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This minor issue demonstrates the problem I have with the article name. Any border you draw around a particular aspect of racism will encompass a different South. Better to work on those dozens of more coherent articles (Slavery in Texas would be an excellent model). Dystopos 03:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge factual content to other articles. As it stands, the name of the article presents a POV problem. Racist policies, practices, conflicts, images, etc are more verifiable than Racism per se. (i.e. would we write an article about "Pessimism in the Baltics" or "Apathy in the Swiss Alps"?) The ways in which these polices, practices, conflicts, images, etc. were and are experienced in the American South is covered in several articles and requires a certain amount of POV to aggregate into a blanket topic. It might work better as a category, though. Dystopos 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia might very well have an article on "Apathy in the Swiss Alps," if the Swiss had ever codified mandatory apathy into law, as Jim Crow laws did. I'm not saying the article title is perfect, but I see no reason to rename before the article is expanded. Xoloz 05:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Until the article is expanded it has no value at all. As I said before, the codification of racism into law is verifiable. The racism that brought such things into being is more difficult to restrict to verifiable info or limit to the Southern U.S. Dystopos 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that racism de facto is more difficult to verify than racism de jure; however, racism de fact is also verifiable (in oral histories, cultural histories, documentary film, and scientific studies, etc.) To deny de facto racism merely because it is harder, but possible, to document would be a gross injustice. The article is in serious need of cleanup, but the topic is too crucial to allow deletion of the article. Xoloz 18:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we agree in principle. The important thing is the clean-up. I see the name of the article as a potential obstacle to that effort which might be better to undertake in other articles. But that is only my opinion - it should be left to the editors who do the work. What do you think of the idea of making this a Category name instead of an article name? Dystopos 19:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is a strong possibility in the future. Even in my initial vote, I feared this was too expansive a topic for a single article. If this is made a category, though, questions of semantics (racism, racist, racialist, race relations, etc.) might spark the same debate that has begun here in earnest. I think the issue premature till the article expands. Xoloz 04:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wish I knew where to begin. It sounds like it was written by a third grader. Dystopos 05:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
MergeThis article is too eclectic to represent much of a start on this subject. Merge to an article on "The South," which should exist, but doesn't. :ThaddeusFrye 08:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC). Comment - (Southern United States) Dystopos 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, expand. Secretlondon 13:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Conditional Keep, if the article discusses ALL racism (i.e, Japanese concentration camps, Cuban detainees, racism experienced by Whites (i.e. trying to "act" Black), etc...
I understand some of those concerns, but fail to understand how "Whites...trying to 'act' Black" is racism, or even exactly what that means. Xoloz 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Not sure what it would hurt to delete the current mess, though. Dystopos 02:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP; article was brought up to notability in this admin's opinion near the end of the vfd period. Golbez 05:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article is vanity. Also, I'm thinking to replace the current words with the NASCARCraftsman Truck Series driver biography. Is there any plans to replace this article with the NASCAR truck driver biography? --RonH 03:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have editted the page to be a proper biography for the NASCAR Driver of the same name, you can consider this issue resolved. Drdisque 15 Jun
Comment: This user seems to be admitting to be the anonymous user who created, then vandalized the page. Both the registered user and his anonymous log in have made questionable/reverted edits in the past.(WAvegetarian 19:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Note the user page for Jinkleberries and Drdisque's comment on it.WAvegetarian 04:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep the new (NASCAR) version of the page. Pburka 01:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep in light of changes.WAvegetarian 19:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a note, I was not the original creator of that article, nor do I know who Jinkelberries is as the log will attest. I came across it as I have written new entries for several notable race car drivers as my contributions log will attest. Drdisque
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 05:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yet another article about an album that doesn't yet actually exist. I don't know how authoritative the info on this page is, but somebody wrote in February to say that the album would be released in October. So I suggest zapping the page till the album actually emerges (and its title is fixed). -- Hoary 04:08, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete crystal-ball-gazing —Wahoofive (talk) 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 05:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not harmonious with empiricism. Geogre 14:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete if it happens then maybe the article. ConeyCyclone 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
We read that he has written novels -- but nothing by Nate Moyer appears at either Amazon or Bookfinder. His biggest claim to fame seems to be his embrace by the literary group "Chien", but Google has no hits for either "nate moyer" chien or "nathaniel moyer" chien. Whether it's hoax or vanity, it's unverifiable. -- Hoary 04:19, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete - likely hoax. The university he allegedly studied at does not appear to exist. --FCYTravis 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: He studied at his girlfriend, I guess. Hoax/prank/bye-bye. Geogre 15:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sounds fake. ConeyCyclone 17:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Tabitha-Brendall University doesn't seem to exist. Pburka 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
User:Ariele created then incompletely nominated for VfD with this comment on article page: redundancy, there's already a Category by the title "U.S. Inventors". DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with User:Ariele and it's just an unordered list. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - and a gold star to Ariele for realizing her own mistake and VFDing her creation herself - if not quite perfectly. --FCYTravis 09:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I'm all for lists, but this one doesn't have any advantages over the category. Mgm|(talk) 10:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete A redundant list, that is listing renudnantly. Spotteddogsdotorg 14:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete there is something like that elsewheres. ConeyCyclone 17:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I agree, there is a category already. King of ♥♦♣♠ 17:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. WP:CSD specifically says: "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."Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect. Golbez 06:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Michael Jackson; it seems inherently POV that it's there at all. Why not create a page called Wife murderer and redirect to O.J. Simpson? Ral315 05:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT from nominator: This is a vote to delete a redirect; however, I thought putting it on VfD, rather than RfD, would make sure that if the intent of the community was to keep (because this obviously has been very anti-delete - which I understand) it needed to go before the general consensus of most users, rather than the fewer who watch RfD. Ral315 06:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Because when you say "wife murderer", you could be talking about Robert Blake. Or Scott Peterson. When you say Wacko Jacko, what else could you possibly be referring to? Or, better yet, who else would you likely be talking about? -- BD2412talk 05:11, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
commentWife murderer, well someone made that redirect just now :-P , -- Melaen 16:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment, well I've changed it to a redirect to Spousal abuse just now. -- BD2412talk 16:30, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
KeepRedirect to Michael Jackson. It's not POV to use a well-established nickname for someone as a redirect. Unwanted redirects belong at WP:RFD, anyway. Oh, I get it now. There's been a dispute over whether this ought to be its own article or a redirect. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't believe redirects can violate NPOV. And Wacko Jacko was in use long before the child molestation charges came up. Anyone remember the hyperbaric chamber and the monkey? 23skidoo 05:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure they can (violate NPOV, that is). For example, The Evil Empire (not really created as a redirect, just piped for illustration). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:52, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Its a well-known nickname and likely to be searched for so redirect is useful. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a established fact, not point of view, that the media some times refers Michael Jackson as "Wacko Jacko". -- AllyUnion(talk) 08:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Redirects can indeed be POV as described above, but this one isn't. Mgm|(talk) 10:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. A VfD discussion isn't needed for this. You could have just redirected it to Michael Jackson and performed any necessary merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a commonly used name for whatever the hell Michael Jackson is. Spotteddogsdotorg 14:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, unfortunately. I understand why the nominator entered it into the VfD derby, as it's an honest question whether having the redirect implies official endorsement of the content of the phrase. Until there is a worthy, NPOV article on the fate of Mikey and the scandal press, this should be a redirect, as we're not agreeing or disagreeing, but merely indicating that users expect to type it in and get to him. Geogre 15:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep What the hell else are you gonna call the sick freak. ConeyCyclone 17:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect, per Geogre. --Idont Havaname 18:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. If the vote is to keep, then the POV of the article may need to be reviewed. Vegaswikian 06:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable forum with under 900 members. WP:NOT a directory and all that. FCYTravis 05:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The forum in question is quite active and has a steadily growing user base. In addition it is linked to a large and growing gaming website that may soon join the mainsteam. I vote to keep it. 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)Gateman1997
"May" join the mainstream. When it does, give us a call. Until then, delete. --Xcali 05:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why should that matter to you is my question? It's up and coming, why does it have to "be here" for it to be eligible, they just forbid outright crystal balling, which this isn't. We have a board that has 900 member and 350,000 posts... that's quite a bit. 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)Gateman1997
Comment - Because WP:NOT a Web directory. There are a near-infinite number of Web fora, the vast majority of which have done nothing to become encyclopedic. Secondly, it's your POV that the site is "up and coming" - there are no facts to suggest this. All we can go by is members and Google hits, of which there are 249. Heck, I've got more Google results than that and I'm definitely non-notable. --FCYTravis 05:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well you are definitely entitled to your opinion on what are measures of "up and coming". Google hits have nothing to do with board traffic, second I would rate it by post count... of which it has a large amount. Alot more then comparable boards at for instance Gamespot which appeared worthy of an entry. ... added at 05:39, 2005 Jun 12 by Gateman1997
Keep - I believe that this site has as much merit for being on Wikipedia as similar gaming websites like IGN, Gamespot, GameFAQ, etc... do. 05:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bosrs1
The article lists "prominent members" including one "Gateman1997". Delete as sock-puppet-supported vanity. -- Hoary 05:58, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Comment - Creator has posted on the forum in question, encouraging sockpuppetry - [4]. Quote from Gateman1997: "What's more important is their trying to delete it... We should try and stop those fuckers." --FCYTravis 06:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that's rich. Prepare for sockpuppet invasion. Delete, non-notable forumcruft. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 06:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: They seems to be spending more time arguing about who should be mentioned in the article and attacking FCYTravis than anything else. I'm not particularly worried. If they do somehow manage to get their act together, it'll be an annoyance, nothing more. I've got a clothes dryer that likes to make socks disappear. --Xcali 07:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, rather amusing, that. I wandered over to make a polite reminder and all hell broke loose. I did enjoy their banter about who should be listed under what in the article. Oh, and they called me an "uber nerd" when the entire point of the forum seems to be to debate which video game console is leeter than the rest. Pretty much says it all about the forum and the article. --FCYTravis 08:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete but watching page as I load my guns for sock puppet invasion... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable. mikka(t) 08:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable -CunningLinguist 09:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. Mgm|(talk) 10:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I don't care if it joins the mainstream or joins the Oprah Book Club: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 15:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons mentioned. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 16:49, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete others said what I think. ConeyCyclone 17:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non notable, ad. carmeld1 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just like to point out that this article does not meet the wikipedia definition of "ad" which I will include below: "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Further all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs." As you can plainly see this article does not violate that rule.17:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)Gateman1997
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 21:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the need to move Digital to Digital signal... and that disambig seems okay to me, so i'm gonna vote keep. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
keep, but it is an incorrect disambig. It must be a redirect to Discrete signal, where the corresponding section exists. mikka(t) 08:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keepdigital signal. Digital is not about signals and it does not belong under digital signal. I also disagree with mikka since digital signal is not the same as a discrete signal and it does not belong in its article. FYI for other people here: analog was moved by Smack to Analog (signal) but analog was about signals. Cburnett 16:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Digital (disambiguation). This page doesn't really serve much purpose. Haikupoet 02:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Change vote to keep per Cburnett. Haikupoet 05:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please note that I changed the page from a dab page to an article about digital signals. Cburnett 03:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Dictionary definition that should have been moved to Wiktionary, and had a notice that said it was but isn't on Wiktionary and has been a site of edit wars between anon users. This is definitely not Wikipedia material and needs to be killed. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 06:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or speedy delete. We'll need Uncle G or one of the other Wiktionary admins to weigh in, but I would suppose that this means the thing got transwiki'd and Wiktionary didn't want it (hence deleted it). Whatever the case, we don't want it, and it's pretty near a speedy deletion. Geogre 15:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's sitting on Wiktionary in the incoming transwiki queue in exactly the place that the transwiki notice on Talk:Hso-Gin says it is. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Ahh, my bad, it is on the transwiki queue, anyways, this page still needs to go. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah - It has no place here. If it can't be transwiki'd then deleteCelestianpowertalk 17:50, Sunday 5th May, 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Means nothing. -- BD2412talk 16:32, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete Sounds fake and unEnglish. ConeyCyclone 17:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
No evidence of notability under WP:MUSIC, no aritst direct listing and google shows more hits for treesleeper camp than him... Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I love the "not affiliated with" message. At any rate, he's a musician, and I'm sure we wish him well, but he is not notable at this point. Geogre 15:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Its vanity. ConeyCyclone 17:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Define notable. I changed the entry accordingly and its now functional and useful. I included myself because if you type "treesleeper" in google you get two different things and I thought if it was listed in wikipedia that google would find wikipedia high on the list- explaining the difference and what the word "means" easily without a lot of trouble. Treesleeper 2:02, 12 Jun 2005 (CST)
Comment: Notable is defined under WP:MUSIC which i wikilinked to above. Also, pending recent edits, it still seems not good enough under Wikipedia:Importance as translations of foreign words do not garner an article. My vote remains. Sorry bud, but get some albums out there and i'll be glad to make an article about you. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:56, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to 'aleviate confusion on google (sic)'. The bit about the Bushmen is unverifiable, the bit about the camp is crystal ballish, and the bit about the artist is not notable under WP:MUSIC. -- Jonel 19:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete, admitted usage of Wikipedia to game search engines. RickK 22:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per RickK --FCYTravis 22:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This is a stub on a principal of a school in Singapore who's only achievement is that he was charged with molestation and found not guilty! Harro5 06:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Notability not established. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 09:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: There are lots of people out there who are innocent of a crime. Rumor has it that they may even outnumber those guilty of crimes, though John Ashcroft and I don't believe it. At any rate, he has a tough job, but he's not encyclopedic at this point. Geogre 15:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sounds like something I had for lunch. And its like an attack. ConeyCyclone 17:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ConeyCyclone, please moderate your attack mode in your votes. Keep all principals so long as all schools are kept. RickK 22:36, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
RickK, am I correct that your vote is sarcastic? Is this helpful? Surely Ng Eng Chin and other principals might be merged under their respective schools -- otherwise, Wikipedia becomes even more expansively filled with minutiae. Delete as non-notable, unless more evidence of noteriety is put forward. Xoloz 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Promo for a website that gets 405 Google hits, mostly from web rings and message board posts. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this really pathetic article. --Xcali 07:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Notability not established, low google returns, no alexa ranking of website associated with collective. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Really pathetic attempt at promoting. ConeyCyclone 17:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. -- Golbina 06:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete utterly non notable -CunningLinguist 09:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, will never be an article as it will always remain an orphan. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, utterly useless list. --Angr/tɔktəmi 14:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Content, if kept at all, should be in the article on diminutives. -- BD2412talk 16:35, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete It should be Deletina-ed. ConeyCyclone 17:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deletina is a nice name... --Idont Havaname 18:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That was such a halarious way to vote this for delete! we should add this to the comedy Wikicity so people can be humored by it! --SuperDude 05:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as with all others above. Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect.Golbez 06:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
First half is copyvio of the organization's website. Second half is about a university that I can't verify exists, even on their own website. Org's domain name was registered in April 2005, with service provided by a diploma mill. Even if the org is legit, I don't see them as more notable than any of hundreds of other ministries. --Xcali 07:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apparent involvement with a diploma mill suggests that this is a bit dubious, and not particularly notable if not. I suggest delete and redirect to GethsemaneAverage Earthman 07:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising -CunningLinguist 09:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to existing article at Gethsemane. Mgm|(talk) 10:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Gethsemane as per MacGyverMagic. Capitalistroadster 12:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Gethsemane Gethsemane. 6:06 (PST), 12 Jun 2005 Geek007
Redirect agreed - if a decent article is needed for Gethsemane Garden Ministries etc it should be created under that, less confusable, title --Doc(?) 14:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Garden of Gethsemane, only because Protestants, in particular, will likely search by the fuller title. If that, of course, is a redirect, then go ahead and go to Gethsemane. Geogre 15:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete An attempt to confuse nutjobs with a Bible place. ConeyCyclone 17:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen(talk) 00:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually i found this page quite funny so Add to BJAODN and Delete. It's a microplanet?? i guess... either way, had a good time reading it. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as obvious misinformation. Mgm|(talk) 10:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Now you know why they call it dope. I'd say it's fiction, but it reads more like an hallucination. Maybe send it to BJAODN, but it's not so funny as it is laughable. (Yes, I'm being harsh, and I apologize to the author if she or he is below the age of 18.) Geogre 15:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Fake and unfunny. ConeyCyclone 17:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am the author, and I was not on any type of drug and was not writing the article to be funny or as a joke. I have taken out the information on the page and probably will not be returning to Wikipedia to write an article again. Note that there were several articles under the micronation category that said there were fantasy worlds, etc., so that is why I wrote it. Hopefully the Wikipedia administration is happy with getting rid of me as a writer and user of this website, because you have lost my support. unsigned comment by Schlockading (talk·contribs)
Comment: We have some articles on micronations, however, the presence of articles on micronations with no physical presence and no notoriety in the world at large is controversial at best. What's more, this didn't say it was a fantasy world; any article on a fictional topic needs to be up-front about it. An article that doesn't is indistinguishable from a hoax. I apologize that some of the voters here neglected to assume good faith and resorted to personal attacks. — Gwalla | Talk 22:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, I would like to apologize for any apparent personal attack, although the attack on what was written is not something I back away from. As written, it looks like a drug dream, as it says that there has been a history of constant warfare on a thing invented in 2001, that it is a planet that didn't exist until it was discovered, etc. The logical impossibilities and outright absurdities in the article are unmistakeable. I would recommend working very carefully on the text, regardless. As for micronations on Wikipedia, I've been consistently against them, and the few that have survived have spurred extremely bitter (and long) debates. They have generally only survived by giving reference to an exceptional number of "citizens" and real world recognition. Geogre 02:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I should also point out that blanking an article while it's on VfD is against Wikipedia rules. — Gwalla | Talk 22:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I should point out that "blanked by creator" is a speedy criterion, and typically that's what people do when they realize their submission was inappropriate and don't want any more fuss made over it. Edit summary was "From author: Deleted so it wouldn't cause any more problems!)", but no such luck LOL. Kappa 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Article doesn't seem to indicate notability. Google isn't helpful due to the number of people with this name, including multiple doctors. I suspect that User:Acudoc, the article's author, is the aforementioned Dr. Grossman. --Xcali 07:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suspect as much as well. If it was he who took this from acudoc.com and incompletely converted it from 1st person to 3rd person, it's vanity; if not, it looks like plagiarism. (And either way, it looks like quackery.) Delete -- Hoary 07:45, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete. The original was POV, potentially an advert, and was rather careless in its use of the phrase 'almost literally'. I have to wonder if he kept a fan next to his toilet. Average Earthman 07:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity plagirism? ConeyCyclone 17:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Only achievement is voice in star wars game in which the character already has a page. I suggest we Delete but a redirect to the character is also okay with me, but this guy is not notable enough to deserve a page.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep After new rewrite. Establishes notability and is nicely cleaned up. Thanks Scimitar. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or speedy delete: It looks like this is one of those "The character of Bob is played by Bobby" and then "Bobby plays Bob" articles that result from wikilinking every proper noun in the universe. Bad practice. This article could be speedy deleted as a substub by my standards: it contains a fact, not an article. Further, it cannot be expanded at present and should not be, as the subject is not particularly notable yet. Geogre 15:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak, weak, weak, weak keep: Re rewrite: I even did a rewrite after Scimitar by going to IMDB and seeing all that could be said about him. Unfortunately, not a lot can be said about him. Two video game voice overs in the 90's, two small parts in movies in the 80's, and random cast appearances in television shows. It is IMDB's job to catalog every actor, but it's not ours, and I think he's too minor still. No change of vote. Geogre 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I re-reconsidered. Terribly minor figure, but it really doesn't do damage, and NPOV'd like this it's not so horrible. Geogre 01:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, he doesn't voice-act. The game uses him in video clips as an actual actor, and I figure he's probably notable. However, this article is atrocious, so delete unless rewritten. --Scimitar 15:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I have overcome my apathy and rewritten it myself. Vote keep for new stub. --Scimitar 15:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. New version is fine. Pburka 01:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Already deleted.Golbez 06:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I speedied it before as a hoax, but the article seems to have been cleaned up since then, so it merits coming here. Even though the article is better, Wikipedia is not a repository for the "relatively obscure." I'm finding references to the name on Google and allmusic, but nothing that would establish notability. I can't even confirm that they're the same person. --Xcali 07:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article doesn't establish the subject is anyone more than a non-notable session musician. Gamaliel 07:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable -CunningLinguist 09:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The article gives us nothing, and we can't do the research for the author. It's possible that this person has done backing work on tracks we'd all know, but the author didn't feel like telling us, and we can't find out with such a common-ish name. Geogre 15:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep musicians are always notable 64.12.116.196 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I play a pretty mean air guitar. Does that make me notable? --Xcali 05:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, you're notable in my eyes :-P Antares33712 14:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, not all musician's are notable Mr or Mrs. Anon. My mother plays saxophone, but I wouldn't think of putting here in Wikipedia before she got a few hit singles. - Mgm|(talk) 19:08, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, quickly delete this bogus crap (see Talk page). Speedy should have come through. Antares33712 15:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 21:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity and or advertising, with verifiability problems. Anything involving porn is usually guarenteed to turn up hundreds, thousands, or even millions of google hits. "Jack Harder" "Two Can Be Hot" gets only 14 while "Jack Harder" "Aiming To Please" only manages 6. func(talk) 07:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Unverifiable. --FCYTravis 08:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Porncruft (the worst cruft of all): One camcorder, one partner, point down, press the button, and you're a celebrity? Nah. He's an amateur porn star, but aren't we all? Geogre 15:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Geogre's law applies. RickK 22:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Sub-stub with dic-def. Transwiki to Wiktionary and Delete. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable color. Kappa 11:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep agree with Kappa. --Chill Pill Bill 13:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under criterion #1. If anyone thinks there is much to say about the color, they should start saying it instead of just musing that it could be said. Delete also as dictdef. Also delete as an unnecessary fork of Brown. Geogre 15:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Its brown! ConeyCyclone 17:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Mahogany (wood) page, sunja 21:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Mr Bound 23:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's as good as any other article in the Color category. Pburka 01:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Sub-stub with dic-def. While it's entirely possible that there could be a sufficiently comprehensive article on the evolution of sawhorses, uses, and styles, I just don't see it happening here. Transwiki to Wiktionary and DeleteJeffrey O. Gustafson 07:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN, thus Speedy Keep. Send to Requests for Expansion.
Sorry, I should have requested expansion from the beginning. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, tools are inherently encyclopedic. Potential for expansion as above. Kappa 11:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I created that stub, astonished that there wasn't already an article on sawhorses! --The_stuart 14:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Send to Requests for Expansion. It's called a saw horse because it has four legs and looks like a horsey. Ought to include the it opens up. Ought to have a discussion of carpentry in the past, etc. As it is, it has been expanded from a dictdef and can stay, but it's dangerously close to empty still. Geogre 15:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable tool. Kaibabsquirrel 16:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Handy tool to have! ConeyCyclone 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Certainly notable. --Idont Havaname 18:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP.mikka(t) 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Week delete - not notable (54 google hits), but the sites that do report on it make it seem like it is a legitimate deal in Russia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Which is a redirect to racism. mikka(t) 23:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very legitimate topic, but a renaming could possibly be in order.--Pharos 09:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is about "prejudice/racism regarding people from the Caucas". I am not sure what could possibly be more appropriate than "Caucasophobia". ~~~~ 11:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable and legit -CunningLinguist 09:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep As it was said in English language "Caucasophobia" is yet neologism. It is present in Russian language for along time though, and it is form of discrimination which is different from ordinary xenophobia (Check Russian search engines for Кавказофобия please). Being different from ordinary xenophobia the Caucasophobia shell be specified for a same reasons why anti-Semitism or phobia of Poles are considered (rightfully) a separate issue. Besides the term is already widely popular among critics of President Putin's regime, and is widespread in Russian publications(both mass-media and academicals) . Eventually it is used more and more often in English. Even if contains of “caucasophobia” will be deleted now it will become necessary to write something about it again. So what’s a point of removing the term only to put it back within few years if not few month?. Jumber 10:18 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All what you have said does not change the fact that in English language (we are an English wikipedia, aren;t we?) it is a neologism. When this "eventualy" happen, then welcome the article. And the point is that wikipedia is not crystal ball. We don't know what will happen in even few days, not to say years.mikka(t) 17:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The word is existing in English language already including very serious publications. Lets say someone will find it the “Migrantophobia, Caucasophobia and Anti-Semitism” address by Dr.Kohiro Matsuura director general of UNESCO or at the materials of UCSJ or tons of other materials(see Google). Then some person who is studying the issue will turn to wikipedia to find out what caucasophobia actually means.. And will find nothing at all. Unless you will write the article again. It would be easier reediting it though. (Unsigned comment by 80.126.57.218 (talk·contribs))
Keep, seems to be a legitimate topic. Martg76 10:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely exists. See Chechnya. ~~~~ 11:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be a notable topic. Capitalistroadster 12:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Notable topic, but original research full of POV. The best example why wikipedia's policy is against original research: valid topic is turned into anti-Russian propaganda. It is especially interesting that the article presents some links as "caucasophobic", when in fact they are sympathetic to caucaus peoples; e.g., stating such fact that vast majority of caucasian market merchants are poor people that work for rich bosses, etc.mikka(t) 19:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The both articles are extremely hostile for particlar ethnical group, in that case Caucasians who reside in Russia; and both article's blame those people for simply who they are. Both articles show deep disrepect to the culture and social costums of Caucasian people and clearly state the desire to segregate ethnic Caucasians from mainstream Slavic population of Russia, particularly from Moscovites. (Unsigned comment by 80.126.57.218 (talk·contribs))
Delete non-English term + biased article full of exaggerations (Fisenko 15:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Delete Never heard of. ConeyCyclone 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please type the word in any search engine, preferably the Russian version of it( Кавказофобия ). You will find that word many mainstream sources regarding Caucasian-Slavic relations . Many articles in Russian media or even academic researchers use the word as well. Apparently materials and articles containing the word caucasophobia will keep appearing in wikipedia articles, especially the ones regarding minority rights in Russia and conflict in Chechnya. So if you delete it now, what you going to do, re-write it again when some materials containing the word will appear here, or monitor an delete any mention of this term in future publications and translations from Russian? (Unsigned comment by 80.126.57.218 (talk·contribs))
Delete - neologism. --Pjacobi 17:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
If neologisms are considered not interesting for wiki users then it should be deleted. Otherwise I do not see any grounds for deleting an article; as a matter of fact I am surprised someone wanted to delete such useful sourse (Unsigned comment by 80.126.57.218 (talk·contribs))
Keep, exists in Russian language, so not a neologism. Kappa 19:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup. This is a very legitimate topic, and Wikipedia:Neologism explicitly states that "Wikipedia does not accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits." Кавказофобия yields about 1,000 hits, which is quite massive for such a specific word. Besides, Caucasophobia is a relatively recent phenomenon, or a relatively recent expression of an older phenomenon. It's hardly possible to describe it without using neologisms. Aecis 19:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not a job of a wikipedian to "describe" what he sees in the street. It is a job of a expert to collect the knowledge. A wikipedian may only report the knowledge collected by experts. Otherwise the whole wikipedia will quickly turn into a pile of bullshit. mikka(t) 19:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that Wikipedia should not become a load of personal social analyses of well-intending users. But that does not mean that Wikipedia can't describe what is happening out there. That's why we have articles like racism, afrophobia, islamophobia, homophobia and what have you. The worsening (how's that for a euphemism?) relations between the government of the Russian Federation and rebels in Chechnya has led to what can be described as caucasophobia among the people of Russia. I don't know if caucasophobia is the best word available. If there is a better word for it, the article should be moved to that title. But it is real, and imho it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis 20:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aecis why don't you vote then? (Unsigned comment by user:Jumber)
I have already voted, thank you very much. Aecis 11:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. The word is already present in the language of experts(check any search engine). So what is the reason to delete it? (Unsigned comment by user:Jumber)
Why can't describe: the key word here is verifiability. I have no reason to believe your description, i.e., your interpretation what you see, thank you. In fact, I have no reason to believe anything you write. But here is important difference, watch: I can ask you for reference. What reference suggests the author of the current article? Blogs? Newspaper clips? Photos where someone kicks someone else's ass? No kidding. I suggest everyone who votes "keep" to read about Wikipedia:what wikipedia is not, what is primary source, what is secondary source. mikka(t) 21:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"What reference suggests the author of the current article" The following reference: the articles from mainstream Russian media (Moskowskye novosty, available in any news stand aruond the world; Izvestia, currently biggest Russian newspaper; links to the media files about anti-caucasian violence; link to the official websites of Russian nationalistic political movements who stand for segregation between Russians and Caucasians; also here appeared official statements of UNESCO which I encourage to include in the artickle, see address by Dr.Kohiro Matsuura director general of UNESCO or at the materials of UCSJ please. Most imorptant is that word "caucasophobia" itself is already existing not only in the street laguage but also in the official statements and media files, which makes it not only legitimate but absolutely neccesary to include the term in wikipedia User:Jumber 23:21, 12 Jun 2005
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep., cleanup. Term is not particularly common in English, but has been used in official documents and speeches and is the only English term for this real phenomenon. Article has POV problems but that's not a deletable offense. — Gwalla | Talk 22:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. RickK 22:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable and encyclopedic. Article needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is "verifiable and encyclopedic" in an article full of conspiracy theories (about KGB being behind "Caucasophobia" ), full of omissions and exaggerations (propiska laws apply to everyone in Russia and have little to do with apartheid; marriages between Caucasian males and Russian females are very common in for example Moscow, but the opposite is taboo in Chechnya; there is a huge difference in Russian public sentiment towards Chechens and the rest of people from the Caucasus region etc. etc.) ...? (Fisenko 05:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))
The idea represented by the word may be encyclopedic notwithstanding POV problems. We need articles on slurs and kooky ideas, if they are widely known. These articles need cleanup to become NPOV Xoloz 05:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Thought this would be racist trash but ended up learning something new about ethnic relations in Russia. Neutralitytalk 01:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Cleaned up version about the issue should be represented in WP, possibly in many articles, or, if in single article, under a different article name. This is neologism and non-English and should be deleted by definiton. Move and cleanup at a different name. Delete this. -Irpen 02:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup This is a word transliterated from a Russian original that garners 1,000 Google hits (per Aecis), which seems a lot for a Russian slur. The fact that it isn't an everyday word in English is irrelevant. It is useful to have articles written in English describing non-Anglophone topics. Otherwise, whole realms of learning might be excluded here because a language barrier is making cross-cultural understanding tricky. Xoloz 02:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The neologism issue is something of an "idol of the marketplace" à la Francis Bacon, a logical confusion based only on the imperfection of language. Noone is disputing that the topic is generally legitimate, but only that "Caucasophobia" may not be acceptable as an English word, in which case something more long-winded but descriptive should suffice, e.g. Prejudice against Caucasians in Russia. Mikka and others have also argued that some of the content is incorrect or exxagerated, in which case it should simply be improved, not deleted entirely.--Pharos 07:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to make an article under the Greek name in the English Wiki? If so, both "Caucasophobia" and Prejudice against Caucasians... could be redirects, the first on the ground that it is a reasonable transliteration. This way, a "new English word" would not be the main article title. Xoloz 08:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I am not the specialist in Russian affairs(I came here through Nick's artistic page); but I see here are two problems: one is with some people who argue that the anti-caucasian discrimination does not exhist,and others argue that the world does not exhist at all. Now the word DOES exhist in English language so English wikipedia should have at least few sentence about what it means. Then users can be redirected at the page about discrimination of Caucasians. Conteins of that last page can be discussed. Erin23
One more newcomer... mikka(t) 15:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Somebody was complaining about "conspiracy thesis"..:) (Unsigned comment by user:Knutson)
Keep You should not be surprised that "new people" are coming in; the contains of this article and the fact that it is about to be deleted was send around to few human rights groups who check the situation with Caucasians in Russia, and to some pro-Caucasian activists so you may expect some new guests and their opinion...But are we "guests" after creating the account?).About the discussion: I am surprised that someone was bold enough to put it at the deleting list! I mean-the word "caucasophobia" does exist, it does makes sense, it is available in the literature, and is even available in some dictionaries. As matter of fact it has two meanings: one is term to describe prejudice against Caucasian minority in Russia and another is a term used by American right-wing to describe the anti-white racism, which according to them is existing in the American society(would it be imaginary or real). To delete an article about the existing word simply because it hurts someone’s feelings is purely a vandalism! About the article itself: it is absolutely accurate observation if you ask me, but I can understand the hurt feeling who prefer to believe that problem does not exist. Anyway there are lot's of links provided to back the point, and most make sense(too bad many people here do not understand enough Russian).
Solution: to keep the short explanation of Caucasiophobia here, and to create a link to the article about anti-Caucasian discrimination, where we can move this article and also some parts of Chechnya section.And short note about "conspiracy theory". Accusing Western law enforcements and intelligence agencies ploting to conquer the World is a theory. Accusing FSB and it's ancestor, the KGB in the human rights violations isn't a "theory". It's a fact. Only recently FSB was officially blamed for two major criminal acts: the terrorist attack against Chechen poet Yandarbiyev in Qatar and attempted poisoning of the Ukrainian presidential candidate Victor Yuschenko with dioxine(spelling?). Plus here at this board one may fid tons of data about FSB being blamed for blowing up apartment blocks in Moscow in 1999 and 2000.(Just check FSB or Second Chechen War
surely enough mikka being a Russian patriot(assumption based on his profile) has another opinion. Well we are here to talk. Musavatist 11:00 pm, 13 June 2005(UTC)
One minor detail Chechen "poet" Yandarbiyev was an international terrorist linked to Taliban and Al-Qaida ... he was official emissary sent by Chechen separatists to Mullah Omar and co. BTW To any sane person it is clear what "FSB being blamed for blowing up apartment blocks in Moscow in 1999 and 2000" is a conspiracy theory exactly of the same nature/credibility as conspiracy theories about CIA being behind September 11 attacks (the "evidence" for this is also abundant on the internet). The level of Russophobia desplayed here is rather disturbing. (Fisenko 05:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Wrong assumption. Also, please be advised that wikipedia articles are not message boards to express opinions; they are about facts. Shall I start the Russophobia among Caucasian people that came to Moscow, but treat Muscovites as natural resource? Among any two nations that live by there are categories of people that hate each others. Former Soviet Union bragged it had over 100 nationalities. Shall we have 100x100=10,000 articles (and yes, multiplied by 2, for both direction of hate!) about how belarussians hated ukrainians, ukrainians hated belarussians, chukchi hated evenks, kyrghyz hated uzbeks, .....? Or shall we write a proletarian internationalistic one how everybody hated russians? And tell me: do Lithuanians like Georgians? Haven't been in Vilnius for 35 years, but last time I was there, a market guy with black hair and moushache and "aerodrome" cap got his ass badly kicked for cheating. mikka(t) 23:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If the term "Russo phobia" exists in documents and publications you should of course write an article about it instead of asking deleting this one. I also suggest to check Wikipedia:Deletion policy from where you may find out that if you have a dispute against articles content, which happens in both cases where you claimed VfD,here and in Nick Gabrichidze article, then you should not immediately ask for VfD but ask for Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you have problem with verifiability please check Wikipedia:Verifiability instead of marking everything you dislike for deleting. Please reconsider your policy. If wikipedia users will start marking every article they dislike for deletion, then soon every hot topic will be marked with deletion marks and counter deletion marks. Do we need such chaos?Authors, 2.00 am Amsterdam time, 14 July 2005
Important note:
The content is changed according to the useful information(from your posts) and your suggestions
The text now begins with:
In North America where Caucasian refers to light complexioned people indigenous to, or descended from Europe, word caucasophobia is used mostly by American White supremacists, White separatists and afrophobes to describe the "anti-white racism", which according to them, is existing in the American society.
In common usage in the Europe, Asia and former USSR countries "Caucasian" is a collective term which refers to anyone descended from native ethnicities of Caucasus. Confusingly, in direct opposition to the most common colloquial English-language meaning of the word (so called "white-skinned" person in English meaning), the Russian language embeds certain stereotypes of Caucasian people. Typically, they are considered "dark", with nearly identically similar negative connotations to the Anglo-Saxon prejudice of "darkness" (http://www.tjetjenien.dk/baggrund/racism2.html) . Some people from the Caucaus refute these prejudices; others ignore them.
end of quote
Authors, 9:49 pm,Amsterdam, 14/07/2005
Rename "Racism in Russia" would be better name for topic and more in line with many other Russia topic articles named "Economics in Russia", etc. A broader article could usefully compare with attitudes towards Central Asians, Chinese, Blacks, etc. in Russia. Note Кавказ means Caucasus (noun), so Кавказофобия should translate to Caucasusphobia. The translation as Caucasophobia unnecessarily conflates it with American racial issues, and is likely to attract additions on this unrelated topic.--JWB 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Possibly rename to Racism in Russia if that helps. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn touches on the hatred of people from the Caucasus in his book Cancer Ward. (Actually, its kind of what the book is about: cancer followed by death are the great equalizers of social status, highlighting the absurdity of racism.) linas 05:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Violence and hatred in Russia's new skinhead (caucasophob) playground
Fascism is vilified in Russia after the sacrifices the nation endured to defeat Nazi Germany. But a racist skinhead culture is on the rise - and it is becoming increasingly vicious Ell 19 : 46 pm, 19 June (UTC)
Delete neologism and original research. 172 12:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep the page, but also keep the TotallyDisputed tag. freestylefrappe 00:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Strong rename to Racism in Russia, per Linas. Valid topic, but neologistic title. Radiant_>|< 14:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, possibly with rename/move, but considering this is an important thing in Russia, the very marginal American use of this word should not stand at the beginning but at the very end. Uppland 12:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not anyone with a role in a stage production (lead or otherwise) is encyclopedia worthy. No relevant Google hits (see here) makes me think this person isn't famous in the stage world. Mgm|(talk) 12:56, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 22:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable frat with 46 google hits, less than 10 of those having anything to do with Upsilon Alpha Beta specifically. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable says it all! Sonic Mew 11:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete if not expanded: We have other frats, so, since the camel's nose is in the tent, we have to let it in, I'm afraid. If they have more than one chapter, then they can stay, but they have to be expanded. N.b. specific chapters are likely to be added as stand-alone articles, and they should just be redirects to this one (if it's expanded). Geogre 15:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, expandif it can be demonstrated that this is an active organization with chapters at more than a handful of different colleges/universities. Such organizations are typically notable. -- BD2412talk 16:46, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I left a comment on their "official" webpage. If they can't be bothered to fix up their orgs own page, I won't be bothered with the outcome. -- BD2412talk 02:45, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable website, most likely the article was created by its owner; "Traffic Rank for tyzo.com: 95,796" bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: "Tyzo.com, is a travel directory founded in 1998 by Toby Streett rd of Portland, Oregon. The site features the largest human-edited directory of travel websites." It might be true, but even on the site itself, I can find nothing to verify this. Besides, I think there's a bigger Yahoo! travel directory, which would make this NOT the biggest as the page claims. I'm leaning towards delete, but I'll abstain for now. Mgm|(talk) 13:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
From what I've seen on their website, they don't even have a real "directory". On every city you click, they have the same six affiliated links to other sites. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 14:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: If it were a leader or the biggest, then it would probably be notable. Barring that (and it appears to be untrue), delete for Wikipedia not being a web guide. Geogre 15:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Spam for spam. — Gwalla | Talk 22:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Local section (approx. 100 members) at the University of York of the British Tory party. It might have been notable if it had been a small but independent conservative society with a long history of its own, but as a minor section of a national political party, it seems less worthy of an article. Uppland 08:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Do not even redirect, as this is a local-only thing. Besides which, it is an abbreviation of something that hasn't a full title in the Wikipedia and shouldn't have a full title in Wikipedia. Geogre 15:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's a rather technical somethingorother about some telecommunications protocol (I think). NN, anyway. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We already have these ITU-T recommendations. Hopefully a VfD nomination will spur someone into making this into a proper article. -- RHaworth 10:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Keep Noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Has marginal notability. JamesBurns 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'm sorry, but this article has severe problems. If G.114 is notable, can someone please put in the article, more clearly, what G.114 is (because, honsetly, what's there makes little sense), and explain why it's notable. Notability should always be established in an article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This could possibly be up-merged into the Jehovah's Witness article (as it could equally into the Holocaust article), but that's a matter of editing discretion rather than VfD, as this topic clearly has notability on its own. Personally I don't think such a merger would be a good idea though, as it's a topic deserving some length; but again I don't really think this is a VfD matter.--Pharos 09:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The JW article is already long enough~(and badly organized), and this is a notable topic. Uppland 09:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable enough for its own article -CunningLinguist 12:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I think it should be re-worked into an article about persecution of JW: part of the text, the last paragraph in particular, are not about the Holocaust per se. - Ar 15:19, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Keep. Articles on different topics pertaining to The Holocaust are almost always notable and encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 16:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The JW article is frickin' huge. Maybe have a summary of it there, liking to the JW & the Holocaust article? --Edward Wakelin 17:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Anyone feel up to making the above link available in English? :) Duffer 13:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The main JW article is constantly a subject of edit wars (big surprise), and this probably deserves a seperate article. --Scimitar 15:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Also, Wikipedians should be severely reprimanded for putting pages on VfD wen they think they should be merged. — PhilWelch 01:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP but delete nonsensical bit. --Golbez 06:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax. Tell the author to get stuffed. -- RHaworth 10:34, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete Even if you try, it is impossible to believe this! Sonic Mew 11:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
From Taxidermy.net: "The first taxidermists were primitive hunter-gatherers who crudely formed animal skins over mud and rock for use in their hunting rituals." It looks like faulty info. Delete, unless sourced and/or verified. Mgm|(talk) 13:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Sammy Green of Palestine? Oh, sure, we all know him! Prank. Geogre 15:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Fake! ConeyCyclone 17:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There are several real notable Samuel Greens whom I added to the article, so don't delete them when you delete the fake one. Gdr 15:53, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus; however, voting was split between delete and redirect, so since it doesn't get deleted, it gets redirected. --cesarb 22:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These were two co-litigants in a case decided by the California Supreme Court. The 200 Google hits for there case are located [5] Many are from Wikipedia mirror articles Delfino published himself. Both co-authored a self published book on the experience. Amazon sales rank ~500k.
Delfino is likely the "Varion vandal" User:Kmccoy/Delfino He has inserted his case into a large number of entries (count still being determined). Here is an example of how ridiculous his attempts to relate his case to whatever entry became [6] An even more egregious example: [7] For weeks most edits were left unchallenged. He has also extensively linked the sales page of his book to unrelated entries and smeared former opposition, which includes "dishonest" judges and plaintiffs.
Delete - per nominator. --FCYTravis 12:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Don't delete Why censor when you can engage in an interesting dialogue about an interesting case. Have you followed this one? It's an amazing tale and Day and Delfino are two characters, that's for sure!" This text was added by an anonymous user, 64.160.178.5 (talk·contribs) ----kmccoy(talk) 03:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Delfino,
Welcome to this discussion. I am glad you are taking this step to communicate with the editors. However, I must politely ask you to cease your rampant epidemic of point of view and self promotional edits. Although your workplace tell all may contain details of a "skanky" co-worker, you should not use this superficial nexus to link your book storefront. I'm sure you are aware of your recent edits so I don't need to point to more specific instances of misbehavior. I look forward to working with you on your disputed SLAPP-related entries. Collaborative work with source participants will produce expert and comprehensive coverage. However, once again, cut the nonsense.
KeepMichelangelo Delfino; redirectMary E. Day to Michelangelo Delfino. The fact that an article on a notable topic comes from someone clearly out to push a point a view doesn't make the topic unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. SLAPP laws are controversial from a public policy standpoint, and as a such the plaintiff in a landmark case on the topic is necessarily notable. Mary E. Day, however, is not notable in her own right and should be redirected. Kelly Martin 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
The case does seem to be notable, despite the spammish way its proponents are pushing it, but are the individual litigants notable in their own right? I'm unsure at this point. *Dan* 13:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the bio details of the litigants can be merged into the case entry. There is no more to comment than this case. Check out, Delfino's list of IPs. Just staggering - to think some of his self promotion was left in popular entries such as Yahoo! for 3 weeks is disconcerting. lots of issues | leave me a message 13:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soap box or a vehicle for advocacy. →Raul654 18:12, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non noteable self-promotion.--Rogerd 18:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete articles about any author who can't use proper grammar in the titles of their books. (It should be whom you SLAPP). RickK 22:45, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
"Rick, honey, you are wrong. Do you understand the difference between Be Careful Who You SLAPP and Be careful whom you slap?" This comment was left by 64.170.193.243 (talk·contribs) in an edit in which he/she also changed other people's votes. kmccoy(talk) 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At this point I recommend everyone please avoid speaking to these vandals, I fear conflict only reinforces their behavior. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete these articles are vanity in a large way. Delfino could be mentioned in SLAPP or perhaps the entry for the case. He doesn't need an article on his own, and the rampant abuse of wikipedia makes me lean especially towards deletion. kmccoy(talk) 03:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Everyone should note that an anonymous user at 64.170.195.181 (and other IP addresses) has been changing other people's votes. Any admin who may be counting votes here in the future should check the history for vandalism in case there's any fraudulent change that hasn't been reverted. *Dan* 15:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle(Check!) 06:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense article of very poor quality. — OwenBlacker 11:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This has been Vfd'ed and deleted before with pretty much the same content, maybe it can be speedied. Kappa 12:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedied, as per Kappa's recommendation (eighth time this article created and deleted now). Fawcett5 12:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apart from the title being an oxymoron, I hardly think this is encyclopaedic. Deb 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete before people find out about our fiendish plot. Capitalistroadster 12:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion.
Delete, POV title. Opinion masked as facts, not an article but an essay/rant/column. Any criticism can be put in existing articles on the issue. Mgm|(talk) 13:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already stated. What about the Wikipedia Sucks article that it is linked to? 23skidoo 14:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No specific reason listed for deletion.
Wikipedia Sucks seems to be redirected to "Why wikipedia isn't so great". Mgm|(talk) 14:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. heh. Are you sure this can't be speedied? hehe."A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil based on its design." --Phroziac (talk) 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No reason listed for deletion.
Yo mama's listed for deletion, Nevre.
It's not verifiable --Phroziac (talk) 13:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We need to keep this fact quiet... -- Joolz 14:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion.
Please do not attempt to discredit my vote, the admin which counts the vote at the end of this proccess can determine if any invalid votes have been made. I never claimed that my comment was the reason I think this article should be deleted. It was merely a comment. I believe that this article should be deleted because I concur with the reasons given by the nominee. I think it would be quite unneccessary if everyone had to repeat the same reasons for every vote, or even if they had to put "I concur" after each vote because that's what voting delete without any further reasons generally means. -- Joolz 14:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not funny. ConeyCyclone 17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
Redirect to Why Wikipedia is not so great, so that those who refuse to see why Wikipedia is so great will not go re-create this non-funny article. --Idont Havaname 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, lest the Cabal make you dissappear Project2501a 20:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion.
Delete. Utterly stupid. Now, lest that be labelled as "Not a valid reason for deletion", I'll add unencyclopedic as well. And give contributor the old bar of soap in the sock routine. -R. fiend 05:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Unencyclopedic" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Wikipedia policy.
Jesus H. Christ, I'm sick of hearing shit like this. Unencyclopedic material ipso facto does not belong in an encyclopedia. Someone get me my sock and soap. -R. fiend 15:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then don't listen.
Comment: The "technically no valid votes" person has a section on his user page that makes light of vandalism. He is User:Nevreware, the creator of the Wikipedia is Evil article. --Idont Havaname 06:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Making light of vandalism was not my intent. Your interpretation of my user page is your personal view.
Delete. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and by extension, WP:NOT: original research, propaganda or advocacy, critical reviews, and personal essays. And throw in a not encyclopedic in for good measure. And User:Nevreware, I don't believe there is any policy requiring reasons to be given with votes; if there is, I'd appreciate if you could point it out.— Knowledge Seekerদ 06:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From the WP:NOT page: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia. Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means of making a decision. The discussions that accompany the voting processes are crucial means of reaching consensus. For example, a very important Wikipedia process is reaching consensus on what articles are not encyclopedic and should be deleted from Wikipedia entirely. The discussion by which that consensus is reached occurs in the context of a "vote" on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. That page is slightly misnamed since the discussion is more important than the actual voting."
Userfy to subpage of User:Nevreware. Not encyclopedic, POV title, original research etc.
"Unencyclopedic" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Wikipedia policy. The title can be altered and more sources added.
Delete - advocacy - Skysmith 09:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Technically all entries on Wikipedia advocate one or more views of how something should be properly defined.
Delete From Wikipedia is not a soapbox: " Personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta." Also, FYI, User:Nevreware, your wikilawyering replies to each and every vote on this page could be considered a breach of etiquette. Soundguy99 12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So could calling someone stupid and idiotic, their ideas shit, and threatening to assult them. ;-) But thank you for your vote, and your comments which add actual substance to this page.
Delete and move to meta: it's a piece of opinion, which includes a lot of original research. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 13:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Inherently POV; unencyclopedic; personal essay; duplicates Criticism of Wikipedia. Incidentally, being unencyclopedic is a perfectly valid criterion for deletion. The fact that Wikipedia:Unencyclopedic redirects to Wikipedia:Importance is not actually an issue. The proposed policy there is about notability. Obviously "this does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a valid criterion for removing the content from our encyclopedia. Have it on Meta or in a user sub-page if you must, but don't litter the article namespace with self-referential, unencyclopedic rubbish. smoddy 13:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Someone here seems to be labouring under the delusion that you have to have a valid reason for your vote. More to the point that he/she is the judge of what is a valid reason. In fact there is no need for anyone to provide a reason for their vote, any more than you have to have a 'valid' reason for how you vote in an election. If there was, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. (No vote by the way) DJ Clayworth 14:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If people voted for things arbitrarily, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. But considering we only get two choices, isn't it already? ;-)
Delete Unless the article is revised to explain instead of argue. If it were re-written to document the arguments against Wikipedia instead of actually making the arguments, it might be worth keeping. Of course, I'd also want to see what sources there are for these arguments (i.e. any magazine articles, webpages or books). I am guessing that it's not a wide-spread movement (perhaps only a movement of one person) and thus lacks significance.... --Habap 17:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for an article. Delete and beat up those responsible. — PhilWelch 17:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is a recommendation of violence as bad as a threat of it? (chuckling) --Habap 17:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as a litterbox, with a permanent deletion notice (just for show). It would be such a great place to edit when having hissy fits. If it can't be a litterbox, rats. The other thing, then. --Mothperson 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per so-called "not valid" reasons as stated above. =D - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- original research... no, wait, that doesn't seem quite right... BJAODN... no, it isn't particularly funny... Eh, screw it. Delete just because I think the author is stupid. Haikupoet 02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's not even funny. Rhobite 05:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete on grounds of being self-referential nonsense. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If anyone has a legitimate reason for deleting, keeping, or redirecting, I encourage you to list it here. However, simply stating "delete" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the veracity, format, or POV of the article is in question, it should be discussed in the Talk section. So far, few techincally valid votes have been posted as far as I can see, for reasons listed below. [Nevreware (talk·contribs)]
And you are...? Haikupoet 02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's self-referential, it's original research, and it's mostly nonsense. How's that for a reason? Rhobite 16:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hard to critique an article that isn't up anymore.
I wasn't aware one needed a reason. Wikipedia is still a democracy, isn't it? Of course you'd need a good reason to vote Conservative nowadays, but this article is silly, full stop. Craigy (talk) 16:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but you don't need to supply the reasoning behind your vote, especially if your reasons are already listed. --Habap 14:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: this is a personal essay/rant, not an encyclopedia article. -- The Anome 16:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV by definition. carmeld1 22:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV by defition, original research, unverifiable. Jayjg (talk) 15:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV/original research, however some of those criticisms are commonly made of the Wikipedia, so it may be worth digging up some sources and putting the more notable points in something like a Wikipedia:Common criticisms page or something. I don't know what the hell the creator was thinking, he could've actually defended some of that if he hadn't gone overboard on calling the encyclopedia evil and putting those images on, but as it stands it's blatantly just a personal attack on the place. Sockatume 16:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not E2. —Ashley Y 03:12, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Comment: Nevreware (talk • contribs) has been harassing voters, dismissing votes that do not provide reasons (see [8] for evidence). Alphaxτεχ 05:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Its style exposes its lack of real potential. This article is typified by sentences like these:
A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil
based on its design. This view is explored in depth in this article.
The article establishes the parameter for the topic as, an in depth exploration of the unique criticism that, Wikipedia exhumes evil by design. It couldn't be made more clear to what pseudo-intellectual depths the article must go in order to investigate the issue under a pretense of neutrality. The exploration of this view consists chiefly of a lazy wave of the hand in the general direction of a group of people, ominously called "internet [[fundamentalists]]" - well, let's just say it (and he does) - "Christians" - well, alright (which he doesn't say), "Me". This is how far an in depth exploration of the topic will take us at first thrust. I shudder to think how much farther in that direction things might go with a little more work.
This is followed by a section entitled Man-Based Thought in Information, the relevance of which is not obvious, unless the point is to grant access to someone's (presumably not the author's) struggles with epistemological issues in a world without God. Finally, we are treated to an arm-chair analysis of what we might have learned from reading all this.
My first inclination was to try to improve the essay - because I can sympathize with its theme. Any religious person who is never frustrated by the official and coercive agnosticism, enforced through Wikipedia's editing policies, is not religious in any sense that I can identify with. But the only way to contribute to this topic would be to join with the author in carving out article space for a forum controversy, for the sake of further elucidating his point of view. I recommend to the author that he should create a blog, link to it from userspace, and direct people to it who might be interested in his explanation of why Christians will find it difficult to participate in Wikipedia, and why he thinks this is not an accident. This would free him from the pretense of agnosticism, and enable him to write much more credibly about the problem. However, the best way to improve this article is to delete it from Wikipedia. Some mention of the problem alluded to might make a good addition to Why Wikipedia is not so great, but there are only themes, no actual content, here. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
"The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia."
Delete. Or move to the "Wikipedia:" space if decided to keep. roozbeh 02:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Either transwiki to meta or move page to a user subpage of whoever started that article. Or move to BJAODN. - 68.23.97.244 23:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be an non-canon Star Wars character created by the guy who runs SuperShadow.com. I checked Google and all the sites list on the first page of results are either subdomains or belong to SuperShadow. For those who don't know, SS is known to make up total lies (like having scripts for a third trilogy of movies and he managed to fool not only a bunch of small sites, but also whoever created this article. Kross 14:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I vote for Deletion, by the way.--Kross 14:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable as anything more than non-notable fanfic. On a side note, the primary author's IP address is associated with numerous instances of vandalism. --Dachannien 16:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep after a debate where most of the votes are plainly invalid (from probable sockpuppets). There are several "good" keep votes at the end of the debate though. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
person of little importance, possible self promotion 209.137.173.69 20:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BTW thats strange coming from the person that created it and that users various sockpuppetts, anon and registered. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor author. A search of several major library catalogs, including the New York Public Library, reveal that he is the author of two renovation/how to books including one on lighting and on paint and wallpaper selection. If we list every author who has only writen a book or two on minor and specialist topics things would spiral out of control. Toasthaven 15:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Account created 24 May 2005. User's 8th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 20:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. If he ever gets a home improvement show, maybe, but until then no. Hohokus 22:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 9 Jun 2005, the day before this edit. User's 13th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable! A Google search does not list the Roger Moss in question, but lists a photographer, a literature professor in the UK, a member of a Galveston, Texas message board, the author of an out of print romance novel, a California real estate agent, a junior research fellow at Oxford, a high school wrestling coach in Connecticut, etc. Who the hell is this guy in the article? Melvis 16:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User's 21th edit, 14 of which were VFD votes. Kaibabsquirrel 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT For those above voting on an "author", that was a complete change of the article inserted by Toasthaven. The original article is about Philadelphia historian. --Xcali 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
COMMENTThis Roger Moss who is a Philadelphia historian did not show up in any resarch that I have done. It is either he is so noteworthy that there are no Google hits for a historian from Philadelphia by that name, at least in the first couple of hundred hits or that he is just some minor person who may or may not be a historian that someone hates, did you even read the article? Toasthaven 22:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'm not going to vote on the grounds I may be biased (I don't know the guy, but I certainly know his work), but Roger Moss was very well-known in U.S. historic preservation circles, at least in the 1980s and 1990s. His book about historic American paint colors was pretty influential at the time. I don't know what's going on now. --Mothperson 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I take it back. I am going to vote. He's a large part of the reason old American houses are no longer automatically painted white. KEEP and expand rewrite in NPOV--Mothperson 18:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Mothperson 10:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Also, google "Roger Moss historic American paint colors" and there are 70,900 hits (except I forgot to turn off French and Italian, so that may be wrong, still...). Add "Sherwin Williams" to that phrase and you cut it down to about 40,000, but Moss was involved in getting that paint company to put out a whole line of what, at the time, were pretty outré but historically accurate colors, Arts and Crafts stuff, really deeply pigmented . And the line sold. Still does, as far as I know. Even has imitators. --Mothperson 19:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Just because this guy is a paint expert doesn't mean he is notable. Toasthaven 14:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet another comment. Okay, now I'm getting pissed. I've been out of the preservation loop for a few years, but after doing a little checking around, it's obvious to me that Toast up there and other anonymous contributors to the article as it stands now are writing it because they can't stand the man. It has nothing to do with the executive director of the Athenaeum of Philadelphia for the last 36 years who just got a life-time achievement award for his works in Philadelphia preservation, or the man who has written multiple influential books and articles about preservation, or the man who was one of the first to start collecting historic architectural drawings for the Athenaeum's library, or... I could go on, but I would prefer to save it for the article, which should be wrenched from the POV-slimed hands of these disgruntled folk. You should not delete this article. This man is notable. And yeah, you do make a lot of enemies in the preservation field in the U.S. The concept of stewardship is all too often viewed as unAmerican. I feel myself going off into a rant. I will stop. But seriously, please do not delete this article because of misunderstandings as to who Moss is, or where the article comes from. For you article "authors", go write a letter to the editor or something. --Mothperson 21:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Then why does this not come up while Googling the person? He is not notable and doesn't meet any of the WP:BIO guidelines. Also, if he is so important why does he seem to only have two how to books in the collections of major libraries? That defines not notable! If we list very minor authors like Moss where will we end up? Toasthaven 14:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My dear Toast – perhaps you did not google "Roger W. Moss." But perhaps you'd rather not. --Mothperson 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to answer your question, and I do not want you spiraling out of control with worry. If we list influential stewards of our historic and cultural heritages - like Moss, their professional achievements - like Moss's, and their educational legacies - like Moss's, we will end up with a pretty fine encyclopedia. At least until the asteroid hits us. So you can calm down until then. --Mothperson 16:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Moss belongs in the phonebook and a couple of library card catalogs for his how to books, but thats it. After he is dead, nobody but his family will care, so he will have a negilable legacy, if any. Toasthaven 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong KEEP preservationist Roger Moss. Absolutely notable, absolutely important works, absolutely belongs in Wikipedia. Unfortunate to have caused the ire of religious leaders for his favoring keeping churches unrenovated for their historical value rather than remodeled. All in all, very interesting. --Unfocused 16:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep on the grounds that he is a notable figure in the historical preservation movement, and on the grounds that some of the delete votes appear to be a coordinated sockpuppet effort (similar to the VFDs on Historical Mississippi License Plates and several others). Kaibabsquirrel 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who and the Directory of American Scholars. Add that to the fact that he's director of a notable institution, author of a number of books, and the facts noted by others in this discussion. Gamaliel 21:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I could have been in Who's Who or the Directory of American Scholars, too but I didn't want to pony up the money for it. Everybody knows those things is a scam designed to bilk people out of their money. Didn't you see that episode of Dragnet? The guy is a minor player in his field, and should be deleted! Toasthaven 19:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, then, that my library school reference work textbook says the series "has a long history of reliability". Sure, there are plenty of books you can buy your way into, and these may be some of them, but I'll rely on a long established series of respected reference works rather than your word. Note that I don't suggest that people use an appearance in a work such as this to be the sole criteria for inclusion, but this added to the other evidence and arguments presented is plenty convincing. Gamaliel 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Toast! Where've you guys been? At the beach? Oh, right. You, Coney, Hoho, Shure, Melvis, Spot, Toby, and fearless leader 209 must all be busy writing that biography of Edd K or something equally noteable. Still, that's no reason for Spot and Toby not to come vote here. Tell them I said for shame! Lazy things. --Mothperson 21:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S. What does "negilable" mean?
I would like to add that "After he is dead, nobody but his family will care" is really not a very nice thing to say. Especially if you consider yourself a good Episcopalian. Besides, it's not true. Otherwise, why would I be wasting my time having conversations with a knitted garment of bilious hue, when I should be writing about Bonomo's Turkish Taffy? --Mothperson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep information, merge possible. Jonel | Speak 05:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good stub. -- Decumanus 22:16, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete. Malls in the U.S. are generally not notable. Quale 21:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting, verifiable, encyclopedic content describing an enduring physical and social facility. --Centauri 01:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. Stub needs work but, from a real estate professional's point of view, this is a noteworthy mall. Its a well-know urban mall, with notorious issues due to its vertical nature. Mall is known for (among other things) making almost as much in parking income as from store rents. I'd rather see it kept for someone to expand, but wouldn't be against a merge. Chuck 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 06:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Care to say why? --TheParanoidOne 20:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but it seems the name may be spelled incorrectly. I was able to verify much of this information via google under the name "Tuncboyaciyan" with a C instead of a K. Rocky 20:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Thanks to Rocky, this does verify. Article should be moved to the most common English spelling, redirect left in place. --Unfocused 17:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I am new around here and did not know how to do this myself. Rocky
Comment Further verification can be had by searching for "Armenian Navy Band" as well. --Unfocused 03:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge with WCAU-TV. Not quite sure which votes should be counted, but whichever way I counted them, I always came to the same "merge" conclusion. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Dachannien --Xcali 16:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete its in with the WCAU-TV page those intrested can find what they need to know about it there, which is not much but all that is needed and doesn't sound like and ad. ConeyCyclone 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Amazingly coherent for that sort of account, though. Unlike Jinkleberries down below... -- Jonel 23:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useful with the WCAU article. There are no doubt a number of news programs with this same title, and a local news program is just too generic to warrant a separate article. 23skidoo 19:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect or merge to WCAU-TV, changing vote to keep as disambig if multiple stations are found to use that title for their 5:00 news. -- Jonel 23:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's non-notable (except as part of WCAU-TV), and somewhat NPOV (the tabloid television comment certainly isn't dictionary material). ral315 00:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I don't even see the need for the redirect, but, if, when the votes are counted, it doesn't look like enough consensus, then read this vote as "redirect." Anything but keep. Geogre 02:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Admittedly these things aren't too easy to google, but it seems to me that NBC is going to be on channel 10 on about 1/12 affiliates. "Live at 5" has become a common phrase used to describe live news (is there any other kind?) that comes on at 5 (quite common). This leads me to believe that we probably have more than 1 NBC 10 Live at 5 programs in the nation. Delete this. Having a stub on every local news show in the country will be incredibly tedious. all news shows are basically the same; they'll just have a different uninteresting people connected to them. -R. fiend 05:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with WCAU-TV. Not notable on its own. carmeld1 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep if the WCAU article will grown beyond 30k or so. else, merge and then if there is trouble with some other show, disambiguateSchmuckyTheCat 04:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Local TV news is generally not notable. These programs are almost completely interchangable. Quale 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Basically the same information is on the WCAU-TV page. It seems useless to have on there, and there is more than one NBC 10, too. Plus its not really notable, its a carbon copy of dozens of other shows with carbon copies of the same hosts. UncleFloyd 22:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since it's already covered in the article for the station. I can't imagine anyone running a search on a local news show on an international encycolpedia. --FuriousFreddy 01:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deletedSjakkalle(Check!) 07:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't find any smoking guns saying it was a hoax, but Google doesn't seem to think it exists (232 results, only 6 pages displayed, mostly foreign language). Nevertheless, delete as non-notable. Possible hoax material; if you want to speedy it, I certainly wouldn't object. --Idont Havaname 18:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect.Golbez 06:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Restored after speedy because I think it's a reasonable misspelling and should therefore be a redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. --Wetman 00:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. JamesBurns 04:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This was listed on speedy delete a couple of times, removed both times, so someone tried to VfD it but didnt finish, so Im doing it for them. This appears to be some sort of fantasy football material to me, but if anyone can verify that its not, then please do so. Delete is my 2 cents. CunningLinguist 16:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(I started nominating this, but you beat me to it.)
This has been nominated for speedy deletion twice:
and removed both times by Fawcett5.
It looks like total nonsense to me, the places in the list appear to be fictional, and the article name finds zero hits in google. Some (all?) of the places listed had articles recently created, which were speedy deleted. --ssd 16:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
May I ask why? -- Elisson | Talk 20:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Might also be mentioned that this user almost exclusively has contributed to the VfD by voting keep on articles VfD'ed today. -- Elisson | Talk 20:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I also stand fast at my decicion that this should have remained a speedy. I consider it to fall under patent nonsense, definition 2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it. A league with teams I've never heard of, impossible to find info on as it gives 0 hits on Google (and trust me, you can find info on Google for the smallest league worthy mention on Wikipedia), is IMHO considered patent nonsense, even if the article is well-written and may have some basis in reality in some small circle of friends. -- Elisson | Talk 20:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that the places in the article are also fictional. --ssd 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Speedied.Golbez 06:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Err, Im not sure what the policy is on deleting foreign language pages and I dont know the language this is written in, so Im putting it on here for now CunningLinguist 17:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The policy is that you list them on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English rather than here, but never mind. The translation from Portuguese is as follows: "I liked this page very much.. it gave me a ampler vision of geography...". I have asked for a Speedy delete. Physchim62 17:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
speedied. Just no-context nonsense in a foreign language. Fawcett5 17:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Rickk's arguments are compelling. Golbez 06:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This article is not encyclopedic, and I don't see any chance of it becoming so. Ranking universities is not what the Times is chiefly known for -- and even if it were, the point of WP is not to copy the content of famous works.. This probably belongs on The Times website, but not in WP. Cleduc 17:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into college and university rankings as ext link. We have a precedent in that article, in that even U.S. News and World Report, who makes the best-known US college rankings, doesn't have its own article for its rankings, just a couple of paragraphs in a more general article (either way, the entire list isn't just cut and pasted into a Wikipedia article). Also worth noting (for future voters) is that it apparently is only a list of UK universities. --Idont Havaname 17:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not a useful list, subpages are disparaged, and the list is the intellecutal property of the Times. RickK 23:07, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Rick K. carmeld1 23:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete per request from article creator. David | Talk 18:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non notable subject, original research, possible self-promotion. Previously tagged for possible copyright violation, but the author (of both the original and wikipedia articles) seems to have put it in the public domain. Edcolins 17:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
D - original research/self promotion Fawcett5 17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Presumably, the author has blanked the article, its talk page, and its VfD notice. Speedy delete. --Idont Havaname 18:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He declared, before blanking the talk page, that he would not contribute to Wikipedia if his article was considered original research. But I want to make sure he is requesting deletion before speedying the article - have left a message on his talk page. David | Talk 18:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Confirmed - speedy under requested deletion. David | Talk 18:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 21:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable or verifiable. --W(t) 17:31, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
It has a website at [10]. Nevertheless, I'd suggest delete as non-notable; it's only used by the "locoal" population. --Idont Havaname 17:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Maybe it's notable to THEM, then. SchmuckyTheCat 04:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. User already has a user page so can't be userfied. --W(t) 17:37, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete for extreme lack of notability. David | Talk 17:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you can't userfy it, delete it for reasons already listed. If he recreates it, redirect it to his user page. Nothing in the article suggests notability. --Idont Havaname 17:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks identical to the userpage anyway. Delete... Shimgray 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as self-promotion. Don't redirect across namespaces. Protect against recreation if needed. Mgm|(talk) 22:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETED OMG!!. Gobblez 06:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. --W(t) 17:49, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Delete Vanity by the looks of things. Leithp 21:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:34, 13 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 Wikipedia Articles from now on.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. And it was the European Cup back then anyhow.Hiding 23:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's not patent nonsense, by the way, it's a poor reference to the semi finals of the European Cup, in which Widzew Lódz lost to Juventus 4-2 on aggregate. Hiding 23:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge. JYolkowski // talk 21:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete everything this guy seems to be creating is unnotable and seems to be an ad for his organization's sites. --Xcali 04:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Camp Quest as per Postdlf. JeremyA 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect.Golbez 06:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
A much better version of this article already exists (WWE Undisputed Championship). I say either delete this article or just make it into a redirect to the other article. -- CMC 18:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to WWE Undisputed Championship: doesn't say anything that isn't already covered in the latter article. — Gwalla | Talk 22:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as the WWF doesn't exist anymore after it got sued by the Word Wildlife Fund and lost... And can someone please ban Junkleberries! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
According to his talkpage, Jinkleberries was banned for vandalism yesterday. — Gwalla | Talk 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No evidence presented, or located, that this isn't complete fiction. I don't have the time right now to check whether the band of this name meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete. Uncle G 00:45, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 04:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Martg76 21:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- might be vanity, definitely not notable. At best it's a slightly interesting meme that might catch on in the blogosphere at some point as a joke. Haikupoet 02:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Martg76 21:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable.ConeyCyclone 22:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete. If you're going to be vain, at least try to make it look good! Funny name for a ship. Dunc|☺ 19:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An article written in the first person by User:WayneRay about a publishing company set up and run by Wayne Ray. User:WayneRay has now blanked the article, with a notice that he will be editing Wayne Ray, an unsourced autobiographical article also written by User:WayneRay, instead. Wholesale autobiography. Unless someone writes an article here, properly citing sources other than Wayne Ray himself, Delete. Uncle G 00:38, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
delete. It's a article written in the first person, as well as possibly being copyvio --Cyr 10:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Note: this vote features prominent astroturfing for keep.
-The text posted here by "Ell" at 17/06 6:37 was moved to the project descussion page ( Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Nick Gabrichidze )because one person can vote only once. But thanx for contibution dear Ell :)
The original vote is placed at the bottom of the page(if somebody alse will vote please do so there)-
del. self-promotion, original research, nonverifiable, nonnotable. Of google hits, vast majority are online catalogs of art and gabrishidze's signatures in posts. Not a single external reference. Self-promotion is also spammed across several articles, embedded, I admit, into serious contributions. But still sucks. mikka(t) 20:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Google can obvoiusely display only the "on-line" material including catalogs so this claim isn't relevant; however Google shows significant presense of tis atists works in the different collections and popular data base, which makes it iteresting for wikipedia users
Impotant noteTo solve the verifability problem the date of publication which is mentioned in the artickle is corrected. Correct date is: "Het Parool", 25 July 1998, page 2. Our apologies for inconvinience and many thanks for mikkalai for notice
Autors: 1:26 am, Amsterdam time, 14 June 2005
This note was inserted into the body progressing discussion. For details of dicussion please see below:
Ä
The availablity of artists works in different catalogs is in fact proof of emerging popularity.
most cathalogs shown both in Google and Yahoo do not have gabrichidze'ssignature.
The activity of Nick Gabrichidze as significant on-line journalist is of course reflected with a significant number of on-line publications which yo have noticed
who is Jumber, and what makes you think his point is invalid?
I am very active online. But until someone else writes an article about me, I am not going to land into wikipedia. mikka(t) 00:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of fact you have a page here, with a photo of your own self, links to your articles and image of the Bolshevik star you have earned in your youth. You do not reveal your real name but its your own business after all. You don’t do it, Nick Gabrichidze does.. So? If the current position of Nick Gabrichidze page is frustrating for you it can be simply relocated as his user page: still it will be linked to surrealism, (most editors there seem to like his work), necessary political threads and pop art, so people would keep coming..
It is your business, but not a valid point. First of all we are not sure if Gabrichidze actually wrote the article himself, or posted it himself. It could be a text written by some Gabrichidze-friendly critic ( jumber ?), or some gallery which has his exhibition coming. Besides even if he did, it is normal; even if it is not common in wikipedia technically speaking.. Possibly you are not familiar with an art world. Most galleries ask artists to write artists statements themselves, so what you see later in the newspaper as a "critical article" is mostly work of the artists themselves; unless press wants to bury their carriers of course. Besides Gabrichidze is listed as surrealist and aggressive self-promotion is a trade mark of surrealism, particularly of Salvador Dali. Note:typos corrected. Autors 2:47 Amsterdam time, 14/07/2005
Delete Surely they can get a better photo for one who "is still the mater of political controversy"! Sonic Mew 20:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to discuse a personalities unless they violating a code of conduct at this particular discussion (Unsigned edit by Jumber (talk·contribs))'
Keep There ARE external refernces (such as expatica link, plus peference to the "Het Parool"(verifiable in any libruary). Big number of reference would make artickle look like a resume I guess. No proof of self-promotion but the articke could be a contribution by one of the art agensies who work with this particular artist, which is indeed acceptable for active artist. Jumber 23:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Xcali 04:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The great Russian writer Bulgakov once wrote:
"To see that Dostoevsky is a great writer one should not ask for his reference. Seeing one of his books would be enough"
Same applies for artists. I enjoyed seeing his artwork here Lola pianola 11 : 09, 13 Jun (UTC)
user's first and second edits on Wikipedia are to this VFD page.
Delete - non-notable. --FCYTravis 10:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable. It is an article about the un-official, so called underground activity: both in the fields of journalism and arts. Even in his choise of politics. Either we remove articles regarding alternative forms of journalism, arts and politics(I mean graffiti, murals, Online journalism or accept the fact that Gabrichidze is indeed the most notable representative of that sector of society. Please remeber that number of coorporate serch engine hits or amount of headlines aren't neccesarily the sighn of significance. Kaji1 14 : 08, 13 Jun (UTC)
Keep Art is not the same as let's say MTV when you discuss how notable the artist is. Self-promotion? Maybe but artists who is not self-promoting himself should consider retirement. If we remove him we should remove Keith Haring too Erin23 3 : 07 pm, 13 June (UTC)
KeepKeith Haring is already dead. It's known that artists should die first to get recognition. Let's make an exception and keep this page:)Pop culture highway 15:36, 13 June
Comment: Whoever closes this vote should note that the last three users all did their first edits after this article was nominated for VfD and somehow mysteriously all found their way to this vote. Also note that the subject of this article has been added to several legitmate art articles including Art deco and Surrealism. DS1953 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So what's your point?
If you will check surrealism page you will see that the image of "Chess revolution"(good work don't you think) .Chess revolutionwas added by the author of the same article we have to WfD here; but the link from painting directly to this article was created by User:Sparkit who is a long time wiki editor
If you ask me image belongs there; there is nothing more surrealist then that piece in contemporary art(my personal opinion). Pity if we will remove it because the artists "official status" does not satisfy some ones pedantism
If you ask me, my 12-year old daughter may do better than this piece of pretentious daub. mikka(t) 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! Your daughter is really talented then, no kidding. Of course it is too early to allow her to open even user account here, but you must have already set some on-line photo album or even website with her paintings. Can I see it? I am really interested. I know some gallery owners who exhibit prodigy kids, so may be I would even arrange an exposition… Can you please post a link here?
Delete - not notable. DS1953 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect to your opinion can you spare some more minutes of your valuable time to explain us your point of view in details? Thanks in advance.
Keep Obviously artists and also scientists do not make headlines everyday. If we will begin removing people because they have not enough hits in the corporate websites and traditional media, soon wiki will have only the MTV stars and top politicians left Punkpunk 17:37, 13 Jun 2005
Not obviously. Notable artists and scientists do make headlines. We don't have articles about each and every professor in the world. They are normal people, who do their noral job. The guy that owns pizza hut across my office is just as deserving as Bush before the face of God. Biu obviously there is some difference betwen them. Another reson is verifiability of information about him. I don't believe a single word of the wikipedia article how good he is, unless a solid reference is provided. I am tired to explain this at every VfD. mikka(t) 15:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep For an living artist he made a tremendous achievement. There is no point to wait for official monography to come out, it does not happen until 50 years of artist's demise usually. If his works are present in the catalogs plus are available publicly as a murals then keep it. There are references and catalogs available at search engines(not only Google) plus many images from his websites. I checked it, and I have visited some of this artists display's before, particularly in Amsterdam’s public library in April-may 2002, very interesting if you ask me. I think his images are also available as posters(I recognize it) in my area(I live in Europe now, but I have seen it even in Venice, California I guess). For a university professor it wouldn’t be enough, but for the artist-more then enough.
And please, mikka do not take issue with deletion of this page so much to the heart. It is just an art page, matter of taste after all. If people like his art he will be considered(if is not already considered) great, if people will like it not then...
Besides unless someone will prove the opposite, there is no grounds to claim plagiarism.
For the lovers of “conspiracy theories”: I registered purely to defend nick. I do not know the artist personally, but have seen his displays and murals, and I am in the mailing list of one of galleries which works with Nick. I was actually informed by them through email that now Nick has a wikipedia page, came here to check it out and found out that page it marked for deletion (I guess if Nick will keep up his good work I will create a new page for this artist myself, even if this one will be deleted). I opened an account to edit this page, but in a meanwhile I found out that page of other Amsterdam’s cultural phenomena, the Boom Chicago theater is inaccurate too, so I edited it as well.
I hope the fact that I am fun of Nick Gabrichidze’s art does not disqualify my vote. I believe that when coming to art, music or love only cyborgs are neutral.PeterPan1 19:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not. I am a proud [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Bureaucratic_fuck Bureaucratic Fuck]. I have nothing personal against Nick, nor against the authors of his article. But there are certain wikipedia rules. And I am taking to the heart the thing described by a Russian proverb: "You cannot do this... but if you want it very much, then you can". Well, let us see what if it will prevail. It is people who make rules, after all. mikka(t) 18:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay Mr. Buraucratic Fuck, we have to leave soon but we are still online. So when we will leave,can you please post your future comments not in the middle of people's posts, but AFTER their sgnature?
"You cannot do this... but if you want it very much, then you can". Well, let us see what if it will prevail"
If you ask me that should ALLWAYS PREVAIL if we want to make World a better place? Don't you agree? Thanx for a great slogan I will put it on my T-shirt.:):)
You may, acording to Wikipedia:copyrights and GFDL "provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies". But the original Russian say, which goes "If forbidden, but you want it very much, then allowed", is copyright-free, according to the current copyright law of the Russian Federation, which excludes "works of folk creativity" from copyright. mikka(t) 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep To be honest I am writing this sitting next to Peter, and using same PC, so in theory you may consider our vote "one vote", but I am different person, so I think it would be fair to count two. It's up to you of course. Anyway, I am professional model, my name is also Erin (there are some other Erin’s here, among Nick Gabrichidze “fun-club” I see, can I send you an email?)
This is my first post at wikipedia but I hope to find some time to edit modeling, and also "cat walk" section..
Unlike Peter I DO know Nick Gabrichidze personally; I was honored to be his model for a while (See my profile please). I am a one who introduced Peter to Nick's artwork, and projects. Anyway I guess it makes my vote even less valuable, but from another hand if there is a discussion about keeping a university professor at the wikipedia, then his students would vote "yes" or "no" I guess.. So why can’t model vote for the artist she worked with?
I have visited most museums in europe,and beleive me, seeing the original works of great masters makes same impact as seeing the original work of Nick Gabrichidze. HIS WORK IS GREAT. I know my statement is purely emotional, there is no logic in it; so I do not want to argue about it, but I have a right to say my opinion here as far as I understand, so I use this right.
And to get some proof that Nick does what he does, best thing to do for you mikka would be to see it by your own eyes. Te next public project by Nick Gabrichidze will be changing an interior of Holland Casino in Amsterdam, opening is at July 28 here is a link [11]. You are welcome to show up. Nick will be at the opening himself, you can introduce yourself to him and I am sure you will get a free drink and will enjoy rest of the evening and both show and paintings..Knutson
One last comment from Knutson and Peter I disagree with mikka but at least he has enough respect for users to make his point clear and argue for it. So could other guys who vote for "delete" spare some of heir time and present us with some arguments? I am sure they can find some, after all Nick isn’t Da Vinci,;) yet.. It’s just so arrogant to post one word like "irrelevant" or "vanity" and go away.
Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 19:08, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Keep My private opinion: thinking that request for VfD from mikka is little biased in that case judging by his actions the discussion about same person at another thread. I am ethnic Caucasian(Azeri )myself and I am shocked how deep the hostility goes sometimes(i mean the other thread not here). I checked many articles about other artists and found even less sources of notability; as matter of fact this has much more then 75% of artists. I wonder if the user who started this thread would ever have such a big interest in fine arts if not Mr. Gabrichidze's mention regarding caucasophobia; would be interesting to see how frequently mikka is participating in editing art pages.. Everybody has a right to put a deletion request at this board as far as I understood, but I guess to give ones self this right, this person should have at least some professional competence in the matter. I would not give myself a right to request the deletion of pages about microbiology because I am not a microbiologist. And the fact that one user has put two pages regarding the same person for deletion within less then few days; from those two at least one(not this one but another, about politics, the caucasophobia one) with no grounds at all, gives away serious level of prejudice. But could be I am wrong. I am not going to argue about it here anyway, I just wrote my opinion once. The request for deletion is biased.I do not know how good is Mr. Gabrichidze as an artist though, I am not an art critic. He makes lot of hits at search engines but for me it is not an illustration of anything. But until someone will come out with some competent comment about his art, not “my daughter can do better” I will stand for "keep him here". I am new user I know. I came simply from caucasophobia link, where I participate. Musavatist 11:51, 2005 Jun 13
Gues what, I came from caucasophobia link as well. And it just happened that we have different opinions about both articles. Your attitude to my opinion exactly of the kind that is expressed in the caucaso article: if I am against a Caucasian, then I am a biased and hostile caucasophob. Nevertheless, I am repeating personally to you again: the probliem is not in Nick, but in the article. It is not based on a published opinion of an expert (I don't have to be an expert in microbiology to see that), but someone's personal essay. Allah akbar! mikka 23:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this guy or a friend is becoming a pest by vandalising articles with self promotion material. -- Solipsist 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I guess the problem is already solved but I still want to cast my vote as long I am here.I live in Europe and I am an art lover, so defenetely know Nick Gabrichidze's art.But I am not surprised that many people outside Europe do not know him, because art is not well promoted by coorporate media..Anyway I think the people who complain about notability have a point. "Autors"(authors) of this artickle should put some more articles about Nick from mainstream European media here to close all arguments against him. I hope (I am sure) there are some available. Evelina 18:25 June 14 2005 (UTC)
This flock of new editors suddenly popped up from out of nowhere just to vote for their(?) beloved artist looks extremely suspicious for Astroturfingmikka(t) 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. I also deleted Nick Gabrichidze from among the noted artists and designers list in the art deco article. The photo of his painting in the surrealism article should also be removed; are Gabrichidze's supporters really maintaining that he is among the most important surrealists? carmeld1 00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia does not yet have a User page called Carmeld1 (just for the record)Authors; 11:30, 15/07/2005 Amsterdam
-Beleive it or not, it is not sock puppet breach. But some "keep" votes(especially recent) are so poorely edited that VfD page would bebeter of without them..
"The photo of his painting in the surrealism article should also be removed; are Gabrichidze's supporters really maintaining that he is among the most important surrealists?" We believe that this particular work is. Art is a mater of opinion. Your is taken into the consideration but please respect other people’s opinion too..Authors; 11:30, 15/07/2005 Amsterdam
Delete, self-promotion. I checked Lexis-Nexis for his name and it is not referenced even once in a single US news source; checking European sources there was one article that mentioned him, however. I'm not sure if it's enough to merit a wikipedia entry. My advice - Nick, wait until more articles are published about you and then someone else decides it is notable enough to include in wikipedia. --csloat 21:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"*Keep I want to support Nick, whose creativity very much to like me. Pictures of Nick are wonderful. It is very bad, that I have not seen here my favourite picture " the Flying Dutch ", but I think, that it can be corrected Ell 12 : 08 pm, 18 June (UTC)
This is a vote cast by a phisical person,and I know her well, but it is so poorely etided that creates wrong impression. You may disqualify it if it lookssuspiciousAuthors
Anyway this vote went out of hand anyway, so could be better for all to close it up..
Keep and cleanup. --sparkit (talk) 14:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non notable. Also, there seems to be a rush of new editors who only started editing in order to vote keep for this article, which looks very much like sockpuppets to me -- Chris 73Talk 17:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable vanity. Self-promoting his art in unrelated articles like Zbigniew Brzezinski, of all places. --Kevin Myers 22:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and sanction user. It's bad enough that he created an article on himself to promote his work, he then had the nerve to add his work to surrealism and even Plato. 172 12:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Completely a vanity page; also, use of sockpuppets. (Also, awful English, from both Gabrichidze and socks; I'm going to go clean up some of their(?) contribs now.) --Quuxplusone 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep but cleanup and do sanction user!!!. There are many less notable people who have article in WP. Cleanup, so it becomes less of an ad. His behavior of inserting his images to Surrealism, Plato, etc. should be sanctioned if policy permits. In spite of this, I would keep this article if someone cleans it up. -Irpen
23:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
non-vote talk moved to talk page. Radiant_>|< 14:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 22:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's see. He is "well respected in the world of telecommunactions, holding senior positions in many companies, most notably Sharp Corporation." That's all very nice, but not worthy of an article. Sonic Mew 20:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Hoax. Highly unlikely that anyone whould hold senior positions in many companies (except for Board of Directors). Highly unlikely that a 25 year old would have a position in a large company senior enough to be notable. --Xcali 20:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - probable hoax. --FCYTravis 22:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 04:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 21:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like flashcruft. ~5000 google hits hardly qualifies as an internet phenomenon. --Xcali 20:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Delete. Not encyclopedia material. --Wetman 22:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This has already been deleted months before. And even after that, it's as unnotable as Firth's other cartoon, Salad Fingers. Though, it's a bit rushed to call this advertising. Nestea 13:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Too little to be encyclopedia material, unlike the Salad Fingers article. Ghost Freeman | Talk 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SAVE Recent edits have come up. I plead everyone to re-instate their votes. --George The Man 00:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mine still stands. Making the article quality slightly better does not make the subject more notable. --Xcali 22:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Slightly? I'm sorry, it seemed to me that it was completely fixing this one-sentence travesty and making it into a legitimate article that was the issue. Whether an article is about a popular subject does not matter, nevermind that Burnt Face Man gets well over 1 million hits on Google. What matters is that someone took the time to put together this information, and it should be saved. See Crusading Otter for details on things not needing to be popular.George The Man 23:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Save Well, I think it is less advertisement than it was before and more encyclopedic now. Save here. Unsigned edit by TURKEY (talk·contribs)
Only edit by new user TURKEY outside of his/her own user page. --Xcali 22:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you do the search properly [13] it's only 5000 hits. Flashcruft. Delete. -- Karada 00:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to have a popular article to have an article. In all honesty, Salad Fingers gets 44,000. 2 That's not too popular. And why do you have to accuse it of being "Flashcruft"(by the way, Flashcruft gets NO hits on Google, yet people here continue to use it, wherever the fuck it came from)? I fixed up the page because I liked the series and didn't want to see its Wiki destroyed because of a stupid person who put about a sentence and some links in, and called it a Wiki page. THIS, what we have now, is a Wiki page. I've already voted, but I urge you all to save it.
Save it's more encyclopedic than a good many articles here. Kuralyov 02:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. '.
Oh dear some sad bastrds deleted burnt face man
I agree, sad, sad, bastards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.4.217 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It doesn't look like a hoax to me. Rather, three random facts of the same name. With a rewrite and major extension, this could possibly turn into a decent article. Sonic Mew 20:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The Web site looks like an obvious and silly hoax to me. carmeld1 00:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be self-promotion/vanity. a website with a forum. Dunc|☺ 20:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be an ad. Intresting site, though. ConeyCyclone 21:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep very nice info Chubby Chicken 00:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the Plump Poultry strikes again.. Recently, Chubby Chicken, has done almost nothing but cast "keep" votes on VfD - many for clearly non-notable, even borderline speedy articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412talk 03:20, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Chubby wont gain anything by keeping this up. I would doubt he's even getting chicken feed for this charade. JamesBurns 04:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, by the way - non-notable website. -- BD2412talk 03:21, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 04:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unless notability can be established beyond being yet another site for people to talk to one another. 3,000 Google hits, many of which are Wikimirrors. Mere forums are not of encyclopedic importance unless they've made some wider impact. --FCYTravis 06:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete (minus sockpuppet votes). Ingoolemotalk 23:22, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
Unnotable "movement". ~30 Google hits. --Xcali 20:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It may be a small religion, but it's still a religion --El Groovy One 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (220.245.178.135 06:12, 2005 Jun 13 according to edit history. Uncle G 11:58, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC))
Ah, the Heavy Hen strikes again.. Recently, Chubby Chicken, has done almost nothing but cast "keep" votes on VfD - many for clearly non-notable, even borderline speedy articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412talk 03:18, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
keep Interesting has duplicate though mystro 04:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (203.221.238.254 00:57, 2005 Jun 13 according to edit history. Uncle G 01:41, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC))
Delete. Maybe vanity, maybe a hoax, but definitely not notable. -- BD2412talk 03:18, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete. Wholly unencyclopedic. Postdlf 03:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep good info for pro-evoloutionist Kate 00:30, 14 Jun 2005 (220.245.178.140 05:55, 2005 Jun 13 according to edit history. Uncle G 11:58, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC))
Delete - Nonencyclopedic. --FCYTravis 05:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. Gamaliel 06:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete all microfaiths --Doc(?) 09:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep I think this should stay, Heavens Gate has a wiki so should Evolutions Gate, I have a strong feeling it's only the Christians who want it removed. this is not a Christian encyclopedia but a global onedarwinist 10:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please do not invent motives for other editors. Gamaliel 23:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, the strange use of terminology, e.g., "darwinist" and "evolutionist" suggests this is a creationist hoax. --Ian Pitchford 10:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Either that, or it was written by very young secular humanists. Postdlf 16:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You could be right, though secular humanists probably wouldn't identify with a small self-destructive cult. --Ian Pitchford 19:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Web site an obvious hoax. carmeld1 00:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As noted by Carmeld1, it is an obvious hoax. Quale 21:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, POV nonsense. --Adun 05:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
A person who never entered a tourney. 6 Google hits which don't seem to be related. --Xcali 21:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, rubbish. Leithp 21:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation 03:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Like having an article about someone who almost wrote a book. Postdlf 03:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be an ad. <200 Googles seem to argue against notability. --Xcali 21:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Still a young industry. Expect to hear a lot about casino skill sites, like FortuneFun, SkillPalace and 888 Skill in the next 2-3 months. --FeldBum 19:08, 12 June 2005 (EST)
Rename to "Skill sites". We don't want ads, but the material discussed in the article sounds like an interesting legal issue. --Arcadian 04:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 04:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 17:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Machinima" series based on a group of Halo 2 players, the first episode of which hasn't even been released yet according to the article. Non-notable, advert, Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 21:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per nominator. --FCYTravis 22:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable, non-notable, likely vanity fantasy. And two of those 3 hits are Wikipedia mirrors. -- Infrogmation 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, irrelevant to anything, vanity Citizen Premier 14:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm game for Deletion. NN. carmeld1 01:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity/ad. --Xcali 19:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity/ad. carmeld1 01:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Not quite sure this lives up to Wikipedia:Importance so I'm putting it up on VfD. Do principals of schools deserve their own articles? The only thing that makes him distince is an he is an Officer of the British Empire (but lot's of people have those, about 858 per year actually). I remain neutral.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep all principals if we're gong to keep all schools. RickK 04:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I didn't know we are keeping all schools. It can seem like that, but it is not the concensus or fact. Vegaswikian 06:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not the consensus, but it certainly is the fact. The inclusionists brag about it every chance they get -- "x number of schools pages have been kept, 0 pages have been deleted." RickK 07:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a neologism of some sort. Returns no hits on google and hence no verafiability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Any faith I may have had is destroyed by the reference to Napoleon Dynamite... Now I'm convinced this is a hoax. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:47, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Perhaps it is a game that needs to have its start, hopefully on this wiki. Google doesnt own the internet(not that the internet can be owned), nor does it cache ALL the pages of the internet. the Fite Attaq page doesn't defy any of the "what wikipedia is not" rules, and therefore deserves its few Kilobytes of space. DeltaZ113
Yes, it does. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Giving a game "a start, hopefully on this wiki", is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle or an advertizing billboard. You undoubtedly have your own web pages. If you want to publish the rules of a new game that you have invented, use them. Delete. Uncle G 00:19, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
This Is a game
Delete; WP:NOT soapbox, indiscriminate collection of information, crystal ball. -- Jonel 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) DeltaZ113
Please Explain how this is a Crystal Ball or an indiscriminate collection of Information DeltaZ113
It's a crystal ball article because you suggest that it "needs to have its start", thus saying that the game is not notable now but will be in the future. It's an indiscriminate collection of information article because it's a game made up by two people lacking last names. I could create six more such games tonight. -- Jonel 01:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 23:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Zero google hits, and if spelt correctly only 770 non-relevant google hits. Jimbobsween 01:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It appears this all has to do with Ayyavazhi, some obscure Indian religion. However, none of these articles give enough information for anyone not already familiar with the religion to be able to make heads or tails of them. — Gwalla | Talk 02:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should be a speedy delete for having little or no context. On par with "Hoobajoob is the thingamajig that ka-pows the wickywacky" because the contributor is describing it entirely by undescribed terms. Postdlf 03:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable/nonnotable based on my below comments. Postdlf 16:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it provides perfectly good context by saying "it comprises the opening part of Akilattirattu Ammanai", if you haven't heard of the Akilattirattu Ammanai then go look that up. The speedy criterion is "short, no context", not "short, and I haven't heard of it". Kappa 04:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I did look it up, and I couldn't find anything about it. Neither Google nor my home encyclopedia had anything for "Akilattirattu Ammanai". It did have "no context" because all of the terms used to describe it were similarly unfindable. — Gwalla | Talk 16:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: this is related to VFD:Nizhal_Thangals. It's pretty obsure, and the author of the page has created numerous stubs with little to no content. --Xcali 04:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The anon who created these pages was blocked for 24 hours by RickK, due to his repeatedly removing the VFD tag from this page four times. I got really tired of reverting those edits too.--Kross 16:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comment—I'm starting to piece together, by merging and redirecting, what some of this is all about; Akilattirattu Ammanai is the holy book of the Ayyavazhi religion, an apparent splinter cult of Hinduism of which Ayya Vaikundar was the prophet. The Akilattirattu Ammanai was divided into 17 parts, of which Akilam One is the first. So an internally consistent context is there. But here's the problem: "Ayyavazhi" gets a bare 2 relevant google hits;[16] separating it into "Ayya" + "vazhi" still gets only 8 unique hits.[17]Ayya Vaikundar gets only 5 google hits, only two of which are relevant (and one is a bare mention).[18] "Akilattirattu Ammanai" gets 0 google hits;[19] "Akilattirattu" even by itself gets 0 google hits.[20] And finally, "Akilam One" gets 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia.[21] Do we have a translation/transliteration problem here? Is this a simple failure of the internet to document a notable religious figure, text, and movement because of where it exists? Or is this simply an unverifiable and nonnotable cult that may not even be described here by the right information, let alone titles? I'm thinking the latter is true here. Postdlf 04:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Akilattirattu Ammanai. Same applies for the subsequent number permutations of this. Wikibofh 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Speedied.Golbez 06:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as near-nonsense. Mr Bound 23:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Near? Try complete. The user that created both pages also tried to remove the vfd tags. I reverted his/her attempts.--Kross 23:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete for little or no context. No one knows what the hell this is supposed to be about. Postdlf 03:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 05:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — redundant with Akilam One; no new content. — RJH 16:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 21:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is factually inaccurate beyond salvage, and the tiny pinch of factuality is already covered in the articles Völva and Seid.
Spáfrúr is an Old Norse word meaning "seering mistress", and as with "mistress" becoming "mrs.", so has frúr (Scandinavian: fru, German: Frau) also become the modern title for a wife.
In the "Fairy spae wives" section, the article appears to be suddenly referring to the British Isles. See also the articles on elves in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore, and on vättar (Scandinavian gnomes).
Here is the reference book on Amazon. I would say it looks suspiciously like a work of New Age quasi-science.
comment - actually, it looks like a work that combines some legit folklore research w/New Age gobbledegook about contacting fairies personally. Can't find any book excerpts online, but considering "Spae wives" has its own index entry in the above book, I suspect copyvio. Anybody want to go to the nearest N.A. bookstore (probably also Borders or Barnes & Noble) and check? Soundguy99 12:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the Fat Fowl strikes again.. Recently, Chubby Chicken, has done almost nothing but cast "keep" votes on VfD - many for clearly non-notable, even borderline speedy articles. Please keep that grain of information in mind when counting votes. -- BD2412talk 03:19, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Delete I have added the definition to the Sheila disambiguation page.Capitalistroadster 00:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete dictdef Vegaswikian 06:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I like it! Could be expanded to encompass it's cultural resonance, and use in Pop Culture in particular. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Any books or articles that discuss theterm, rather than only use it? mikka(t) 02:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is not the end of the world. If anyone can write anything sensible, they will be only welcome to recreate it. mikka(t) 02:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 8 Userfy, 20 DELETE. Moved to User:Halibutt/Black Book per first userfy vote. If Halibutt doesn't want it, he is free to mark it for speedy deletion or give it to someone else. Nohat 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In a staggering display of anti-Polish sentiment, 83% vote for the page to be removed from the Wikipedia namespace, out of which 66% vote to delete it altogether. --Thorsten1 22:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am fairly sure you are being sarcastic about "anti-Polish sentiment" in this case, but it is still interesting to me that there is strong majority to keep m:How to deal with Poles in its RFD. Dragons flight 22:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose there are two main reasons for the "keep" majority. For all I know, Metawiki is not anywhere near as popular as Wikipedia itself, so less people tend to pay attention to what's going on there in the first place, and even those who do are less inclined to get involved in a row, because it "matters less" - admittedly, that would include me. Another reason might be that m:How to deal with Poles passes as self-ironic Polish humour on Poles, even when its real subject are non-Poles. Needless to say, you were right about my being sarcastic. :-) --Thorsten1 07:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If there are complaints about someone's behaviour, take it to RFC. --W(t) 23:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Oppose The very point of that archive is to avoid starting the painful RFC, AtbCom or any other process. As a part of the Polish wikipedians' notice board, this place is intended as an archive of disputes, where other contributors (in most cases without much consideration or conscience, I believe), accuse people of nationalism or bias solely because they are Poles. While such behaviour surely deserves RFC, we decided that trying to talk things over before we start listing all the wrongdoings, gathering support and all that, would be much better. Also, if the disputed part is unrelated with the dispute itself (that is if the nationalist remarks are not relevant to article content disputes, then it would be much better to keep it out of the talk pages. Finally, as the recent problem with Nohat showed, taking such things to user talk pages doesn't work since in most cases such remarks are either treated as offensive or simply erased, without comment. Halibutt 23:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Halibutt/Black Book and delete redirect from project space. Seems to be Halibutt's list and he's entitled to track edits he wants to use for communicating with the editors in question. On a side-note, I applaud Halibutt's concern to avoid undue escalation of his disputes with other users. Clarification: delete is okay too. Keep would be wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The page did not exist until Witkacy decided Nohat was guilty of "anti-Polish behaviour" for removing the Polish name of Kiev from the first line of that article. Therefore Nohat's assertion that the page was conjured into existence solely to vilify him is accurate, and no illusion. (And people who grant themselves the title "Prokonsul" should be careful accusing other people of having illusions of grandeur.) --Angr/tɔktəmi 13:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
..for removing the Polish name in Kiev article..? (hmm?) For that anti-Polish remark: [22]--Witkacy 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That Nohat has the dubious privilege of being the first person on this list is only an accident of timing, not any part of anti-Nohat conspiracy. As for my nick - which I don't think is an issue here - dear anon 'Angr' user - it is a tribute to the poem by Zbigniew HerbertReturn of the Proconsul (Polish: Powrót Prokonsula) Unfortunately, I know of no English online translation of the poem, but if anything, it is a warning of danger of such illusions, not an endorsment :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 14:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not finding anything anti-Polish in what Nohat wrote. It seems remarkable to me that he should be listed, and not, say, Zivinbudas, who really does make extremely vitriolic anti-Polish remarks. But either way I don't think it's in the spirit of assuming good faith or harmonious cooperation to keep a list of every editor who's ever said something that has annoyed a Polish editor. It puts me in mind of the Lord High Executioner from The Mikado. --the non-anonmyous Angr/tɔktəmi 06:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - let's at least give this page a try. If it really proves to be harmful, it can be deleted. For now, I don't see any problem. This is not a page conjured to vilify anyone, certainly not Nohat who just happened to be the first name on this list. Still, if some users have a problem with the name Black Book, I would have no problem in changing it to something more acceptable. Balcer 01:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
move stuff to someone's userspace where it can be kept under any name the user likes. Certainly Delete from wikiproject's space. -Irpen 03:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. Attack page. Unacceptable use of the Wikipedia space. RickK 04:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete a POV attack page. JamesBurns 05:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How can you possibly say that you wish to avoid RfC or arbcom then make a list of accusations? i think Userfy is the best option here. If it develops further, take it to RfC. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy per what others have said -CunningLinguist 07:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or userfy if there is no consensus on relevant main page (Polish Wikipedians Notice Board) to keep it. This page is not designed as attack, simply as collection of evidence and trivia. What rule states that one cannot copy and collect chosen remarks of other users? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 09:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but rewrite and rename. For now, I suggest everyone should Assume good faith, and they should let the page develop. If the page does become a problem, this issue can be returned to some time later. On the other hand, I think that the rhetoric on the page should be toned down, and it should be made very clear from the start of the page that the purpose of the page is to defuse conflicts and avoid more formal dispute resolution such as WP:RFC and WP:RFAR, and it should make it very clear that the page is not the start of some hit list or enemies list. BlankVerse∅ 13:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. This is a troubling page because it could quite easily be a forum for personal attacks, but some of the problems for the Polish users do seem on the surface to be genuine. However I don't think it should be in the Wikipedia: namespace. David | Talk 14:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is very nearly a duplication of RfC, but with an added assumption of anti-Polish bias against the accused. (Quote: "This page is intended as a tool and an archive of such anti-Polish bias.") Dealing with perceived anti-Polish bias by encouraging Polish Wikipedians to pile on to other editors is not a useful dispute resolution step. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The very idea of a list of percieved ills and biased Wikipedians is incompatible with the declared purpose "to [constructively] communicate with the offending users". Smacks of water cooler gossip for a community to create a page to detail the failings of people they don't like. Go talk to the other users, don't create a forum for publicly ridiculing your opponents. I would feel far more tolerant to this discussion page if it were framed as concerning one set of percieved problems, e.g. Nohat, rather than framed as the place we go to "archive" all "anti-Polish behavior". Dragons flight 18:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The stated purpose of that page would better be served by WP:RFC, and the current use of that page is as an attack page. --Carnildo 18:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt argues above: "The very point of that archive is to avoid starting the painful RFC, AtbCom or any other process." I can't see at all how a page like this is supposed to achieve this noble goal, or any other constructive goal for that matter. It is not designed to help establish a consensus, but to polarise. It serves as a soapbox for letting of steam on, discharging emotional frustration by pillorying opponents who one should rather deal with on a factual level.
Its mission statement, as worded in the page itself and above, is to archive "disputes, where other contributors [...] accuse people of nationalism or bias solely because they are Poles.", the underlying assumption being that "[m]any Wikipedians assume bad faith solely because the wikipedians they oppose are Polish."
I do not doubt that such cases do occur; but such statements are rarely made to one's face. Thus, that someone disagrees with another person only because of national resentment can only be inferred. With the odd exception, such motives cannot be proven - but neither can they be disproved, which makes it virtually impossible to defend oneself against such claims. That is why insinuations like that are poison to any reasonable debate, as they are about a person rather than just about an argument. To make it worse, as Halibutt says, "[s]uch views are promoted by numerous people here, whether conscient or not" [emphasis added], meaning that even when someone thinks they are not guided by national resentment, they are possibly just not aware of it.
Let's assume someone says "2x2=4" and I go and tell them "you really mean 2x2=5, you just don't know you do". Or, to be more precise, A says "2x2=5", B says "2x2=4" (or vice versa) and A replies "you only say so because you hate me". B then replies "I don't hate you, I just don't agree", against which A uses the ultimate killer argument "you do hate me, you just don't know it". Such pretensions not only do not conduce to, but effectively forestall any amicable settlement (or "załatwienie polubowne", as Halibutt called it on User talk:Piotrus#How to deal with Poles). And they are certainly more "painful" than any request for comments or arbitration could ever be.
Of course, they are unfortunately ubiquitous, Wikipedia being no exception - but that is no justification to spread them any further. If we allow a page like this to stay live in the Wikipedia namespace, it sets an example that others are going to follow before too long: Jewish editors might claim a right to set up a similar combined soapbox/pillory for alleged ("latent") anti-Semites (such as Poles), Americans for anti-Americans (such as French), Armenians for anti-Armenians (such as Turks) etc. We shouldn't allow that to happen. If there are conflicts, let's try and solve them on the talk pages, or in arbitration if necessary, as tedious as this may be.
While I think that the page is within the limits of what is commonly accepted for user pages, I would nonetheless vehemently advise anyone against userfying it - as it would cast a very poor light on the person hosting it. IMHO, Deleting this is the only sound option. --Thorsten1 19:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete No possible use but as an attack page, whether against one person or many. If you have a problem with someone, take it up with them or take it to RfC. --Xcali 19:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy if someone care's to(However, I agree with Thorsten about it making the hoster look bad; however, that's why it should be in User space, so a single user not a group can be held accountable for it). JesseW 22:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as an attack page, userfy if there is no consensus to delete. Martg76 22:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete; Userfy if no consensus to delete. If you feel someone's conduct merits public discussion, start an RfC, which gives him/her a clear opportunity to respond. I disagree with the characterization above of the RfC process as inherently "painful": it's only painful if it is used as a form of attack. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that the very point of RfC and ArbCom is to force the sides to obey some rules or agree to a solution of the problem. In other words, it means that in most cases reporting users on WP:RfC is equal to requesting their punishment or a ban. It is not the best way such problems should be dealt with, I believe. Asking the ArbCom to block people solely because they make nationalist remarks seems like the worst possible option to make them reconsider their views or apologise. But perhaps it's just me. Halibutt 11:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Note that RfC is just that: a request for comment. RfC is—or is supposed to be—an opportunity for different sides of a dispute to present their concerns and criticisms, and to seek community opinion. (Here, community refers to all Wikipedians, and not just Polish ones.) There is no mechanism for binding arbitrated settlements within RfC itself; it is meant to report and describe the disputed behaviour and seek outside comment. Any resolution achieved through RfC is enforced through social pressure alone. The ArbCom is not involved in the RfC process, and does not impose blocks, bans, or other restrictions. In other words, RfC is supposed to be all the things that you've described the Black Book as. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Come on guys. Talking is a Polish way of dealing with problems. This is true that there is a considerable number of anti-Polish biased comments on Wikipedia. If we start reporting them all on RfC you will say that Poles just make a fuss. But the problem will remain. I really don’t see a difference between a comment made in face of someone and a generalisation, if the comment itself refers to all the people of one nation. As I understand, Witkacy tried so far all the possible methods to solve the problem except RfC. Now comes the time for discussion. Please, do not underestimate the value of our discussions, after all our talks were one of the main causes of failure of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Please, do not assume bad will or that the talks will not be constructive. Give this page a chance. I really think it’s important to talk things out before reporting them to the highest stage. Why the page is here? Because it concerns all the Poles, not just Witkacy. However, if you insist on moving this page, I would readily offer to be its host, and no, I would not consider myself put in a bad light by defending the good name of my folks, Thorsten1. I don’t know, why you assume that everyone, who would not agree with a Pole, would be there, as I understand the dissidence of opinions is not the subject of this page. I also want to remind that this page was not established against any group of people or single persons. If there is any thing in initial description you find improper, please, be constructive and suggest your changes, but do not dismiss the entire idea. As the title appeared objectionable, may I propose mine “Night talks of Poles” instead? --SylwiaS 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Sylwia, but I can't agree. At the risk of repeating myself, I fail to see how this page is supposed to help find a consensus: Offenders who find themselves pilloried will be even less likely to play nice; if anything, they will become more defiant.
You say that "Talking is a Polish way of dealing with problems." Fine, but talking is also a Polish way (not only a Polish way, of course) of creating problems - this page and discussion being a textbook example...
You said you "don’t know, why you assume that everyone, who would not agree with a Pole, would be there". Let me try and explain this once again: If I am not mistaken, the whole trouble began when Nohat mentioned the mere existence of Polish nationalists; he did not say anything like "all Poles are nationalists". This statement was all it took to get him blacklisted as a Polonophobe here. From this it follows logically that anyone who does not believe that the Polish nation, as about the only nation in the world, has not produced any nationalism at all, is a Polonophobe. Anyone who does not promulgate the opinion that all Poles are angelic creatures, innocent of any wrong-doing by definition, runs the risk of finding themselves in your "Black Book".
You say that "there is a considerable number of anti-Polish biased comments on Wikipedia". Fair enough, but then there is a considerable number of "anti-anything biased comments" on Wikipedia; Poles are by no means the only ones to suffer under biased or unfair comments. Why, there are even Polish "anti-Rest of World biased comments" (Western betrayal anyone?;-)) In response to this, should we really all form cosy national corrals in which we can whine about the wickedness of the outside world? Should we backbite and stigmatise our opponents as anti-whatever-ists from some collective soap-box?
You appeal to the principle of assuming good faith regarding this page - this is absurd, as the page itself is an instutionalisation of assuming bad faith in other users. You say you "would not consider [your]self put in a bad light by defending the good name of [your] folks". Well, the conviction that you constantly need to "defend the good name of your folks" seems to be a part of the problem here, rather than a part of the solution, but that's not really the issue. I am not surprised that you would not consider yourself to be in a bad light - but that's not issue, either. The issue is that others may see you in a bad light, and, to make matters worse, might identify you with "your folks" on behalf of whom you claim to be speaking. Thus, if the comments of the non-Polish users in this vote are any indication, I feel that this page is going to accomplish the very opposite of its stated purpose, i.e. to "defend the good name of the Poles". Finally, to legitimise a page like this by sublime appeals to the Polish merits in overthrowing communism smacks of exactly what makes less Polonophile people shake their heads in wonderment. I really think that removing this page would be a win-win solution for all parties: both for the "good name" of the Poles, and for Wikipedia at large. --Thorsten1 22:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thorsten, you fail to see..? Yes, I’m afraid you are. Simply because you didn’t give this page a chance. Instead you wrote a long "proof" of all the evil, which according to you hides behind it. We say that a devil has big eyes, you managed to prove it, I grant you. I am sure that Poland as every country has its nationalists, there is nothing to argue about (however it was not, what Nohat said, though I can assume, he didn’t mean it). Moreover, if I thought that the issue of the page was as you described it, I would never give it my support. The problem of this discussion is elsewhere. There was nothing in intentions of this page, what you wrote about, but you chose to see it differently. Are those facts of just your assumptions? May I just ask few questions? 1. “Offenders who find themselves pilloried will be even less likely to play nice; if anything, they will become more defiant.” How do you know we would? Very likely we would decide to ignore such offends in future. 2. “talking is also a Polish way of creating problems” well, I agree, there wouldn’t be biased anti-Polish comments if there were no Poles. Can you give a real example of a real problem? 3. Do you think it possible to give people, who find themselves lost in discussion, several examples of better counterarguments than calling their advisors nationalists? 4. Western betrayal. Can you tell exactly what makes you so uneasy about it? You just made me read the latest discussion there. Many Poles giving their opinions, bringing facts, but no name calling. So is the title so hurtful or the existence of the unpleasant history itself? BTW I read your comments there and once again I cannot agree. Sorry, but one cannot discuss with history by saying, what if… Were there really plans of using a nuclear bomb in Poland or is that just one more black scenario? We don’t know, what Poles would do? Well, we certainly know, what they did, as well as what the West did. Can you at least see that going this way of thinking we might say: How do we know that Jews or Poles wouldn’t create extermination camps, if they were in Nazi’s place? Whatever question we might ask, those things never happened, therefore are no good arguments against facts. But never mind. Question 5. “the conviction that you constantly need to "defend the good name of your folks"” Why constantly? Can you tell, what do you mean? 6. “The issue is that others may see you in a bad light”. That’s exactly to what I said before that I wouldn’t care. Don’t you think?
As to the rest of your message, I refuse to answer. I read it couple times and I sincerely hope you didn’t mean it, you didn’t want to say such things. What I asked for, was just giving this page a chance, without prejudices, without black scenarios foreseeing things, which were no one’s intention. What I was given instead was a saddening message of your prejudiced feelings about Poles. Once again, no single fact, just a very unpleasant narration about your picture of us. It was enough to say that you oppose and spare me the rest, really. I am a Pole. Please, accept my best wishes. --SylwiaS 05:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sylvia, I think there is no point in prolonging this; all points have been stated clearly and the argument is by now going round in circles. Your response shows that you have been misinterpreting several of my statements, some deliberately and apparently in attempt to add fuel to the fire, others perhaps involuntarily. And some of your statements leave me utterly confused: How do Nazis, Jews, and nuclear bombs come into this? If you have something to say on Western betrayal, please do so at Talk:Western betrayal. I merely mentioned that article as an example that some Polish editors are arguably also affected by bias - not because I wanted to enter any debate here. As for your declared good intentions, I can well imagine that neither you nor anybody else who got involved with this page actually realised they were doing anything ungood - after all, I do assume good faith. Alas, your good intentions do not alter the fact that, by now, the overwhelming majority of the votes consider this page a display of bad faith. Of course, you may put that fact down to everyone here being a closet Polonophobe, if you really can't think of another explanation. Finally, I wonder where you see "a saddening message of [my] prejudiced feelings about Poles" and, "once again", "a very unpleasant narration about [my] picture of [Poles]". I do not remember ever making any generalised statements about Poles (or any other nation or collectivity, for that matter). But probably I'm just not aware of my anti-Polish sentiments, right? So if you wish, go ahead and add me to your blacklist while the fun lasts. --Thorsten1 22:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, it's best to end this discussion. Glad that we all do assume good faith - after all. --SylwiaS 00:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the Black Book is a bit of an overkill. In the case the page is preserved in some form I definetly support a name change to something less agressive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 07:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To paraphrase Juliet, a piece of shit by any other name would still smell like a piece of shit. Nohat 08:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete, personal attack magnet. Radiant_>|< 15:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Userify with prejudice. Blacklists outside established procedures are completely unacceptable in Wikipedia namespace. If anybody wants to keep this in their personal space and be that closely associated with it, be our guest, as far as I'm concerned, but do expect people to judge you by it. Zocky 22:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice as inappropriate for what is effectively a "WikiProject" by another name. Should every "Nationality Wikipedians' notice board" keep a "Black Book" of those Wikipedians perceived as being prejudiced? We'd be over-run. --Phil | Talk 12:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is effectively a project to collect potential incriminating evidence. Such a project should only be undertaken when the dispute resolution process is being used, or the evidence may be gathered on a user subpage prior to pursuing a particular avenue of dispute resolution. If someone cares to volunteer to host this in their user space, I suppose that could be considered, but it does not belong where it is now. --Michael Snow 21:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Does not help us write an encyclopedia. The name alone indicates that it is a bad faith effort. If there are problems with specific editors then there are existing methods for dispute resolution. -Willmcw 20:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy. Agree with everything said above -- if someone's being anti-Polish and it's disrupting the Wikipedia, take it to arbitration so that the racist can be banned. That's not clogging up RfAr, that's what the arbitration committee is supposed to do: ban disruptive and unpleasant people. Tuf-Kat 21:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice as per, um, everyone else, all good points made here. This is a ridiculous project. Ever heard "two wrongs don't make a right"? Well by (misconstruing?) their edits as racist you are breaching WP:NPA. Calling someone a racist could be quite an insult if that wasn't what they were intending. We do not allow racism, but nor can we let you create this little political-correctness bubble around yourselves if it is being done at the cost of WP:NPA. Master Thief GarrettTalk 02:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
(talk) 13:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
