Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eisenmann

This article about a university professor seems more suited to be in a résumé or a curriculum vitae than an encyclopedia article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not your local college yearbook. Master Thief Garrett 02:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 04:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable
Keep Notable professor, but this article needs alot of expansion. Klonimus 19:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What makes him notable? Kappa 19:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article as written does not provide evidence of passing the Average Professor Test. --Carnildo 21:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
where is the average professor test? Yuckfoo 01:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- wikipedia:professor test Kappa 04:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established. R adiant _* 09:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 21:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Bayliss

I don't think she meets the criteria for notability. There's almost no information about her online other than who she dates.

Secretcurse 00:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, being a hot model is not enough to keep you here... unless the voters are very, veryy lonely... Master Thief Garrett 02:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, no matter how lonely we are, there's certainly no point in keeping an article that doesn't have a nice bathing-suit photo or even a link to some photos. . . . . . Soundguy99 01:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 17 unique Google hits for "lucy bayliss" model, not all of which are relevant. Being a Beatle's son's girlfriend doesn't earn you an article, I'm afraid. android↔talk 04:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obscure Adun 19:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 21:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The smoke signal

Student newspaper. Delete as vanity/advertising --Henrygb 00:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, we are not your local college's bulletin board. Master Thief Garrett 02:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability. jni 06:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. LaTortue 19:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - place sucked too -- Lotsofissues 07:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC), an alumnus
Redirect to smoke signals. -Sean Curtin 00:39, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Why make it a redirect? People wanting that would search for "smoke signal" not "the smoke signal". Master Thief Garrett 00:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 21:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep. moink 01:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Berg conspiracy theories

Summary to help guide admin decisions:

Delete 7: Walkingeagles, Master Thief Garrett, Megan1967, Texture, Isaac R, android, Rossami
Keep 7 (includes votes such as "rewrite completely"): Firebug, Westifer, ShadowyCabal, zellin, Striver, zen master, Deco
Unclear 2 :TenOfAllTrades (Delete or merge), Mgm (Delete unless revised),

No significant article changes since nominated.

Unencyclopedic speculation and strange things like questions

PRESERVE The truth is a vibrating quantum blur- the viewer and the view create it. Let the truth be alive.
Delete The whole basis of this article is original research or speculation including choice sentences like "Nick Berg visited Israel which lends credence to the idea he was an Israeli spy. I visited Canada once, does that make me a secret Mountie agent? And that is just one of many examples. The article asks a series of questions which I can only assume doesn't really fit in any article. It seems to be stream of consciousness. Walkingeagles 23:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I need to give this a closer read, but at the very least, it needs some serious cleanup. For one thing, rhetorical questions don't belong in an encyclopedia article. ~~No vote for now.~~ android↔talk 01:54, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete *unless* hugely revised. Concerns much the same as those voiced above. Master Thief Garrett 02:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: what are the criteria for judging notability of conspiracy theories? "Nick Berg" "conspiracy theory" gets 3700 googles. Meelar (talk) 02:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, speculation. Megan1967 04:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite completely; 3,700 Google hits means that these theories are somewhat notable, but the article as written is a mess. Firebug 04:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In principle, I agree with you. But who would write an NPOV article about the conspiracy theories surrounding the death of a single individual? All the people interested in those theories are true believers in Nick Berg conspiracies. A more neutral observer is likely to be interested in conspiracy theores as a general phenomenon, and not be interested in focusing on this particular area. ¶ If I thought anybody was likely to step up to the plate, I'd suggest stubifying the article. (The existing article is really a conspiracy tract, not an article -- there's nothing worth saving.) But I don't believe anybody will, so we might as well delete it. ---Isaac R 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless revised. This is complete speculation and most of the so called "suspicious" things about the video are easily explained by the captors killing Berg before his decapitation. And "the Islam forbids men wearing golden adorements" doesn't prove a thing either. Islam forbids killing too. Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge. We have an article on Nick Berg; we don't need an article on conspiracy theories to act as a POV fork. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - All these claims are moot now that they have turned out false. Delete it. - Tεx τ urε 20:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a conspiracy tract, not an article. ---Isaac R 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, based on compelling arguments made by various others in this discussion. android↔talk 00:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, Rewrite. This article being separate makes it a soapbox for conspiracy theorists. Yes, there are bad arguments, but there are many good ones much accredited by research and people spent a lot of time accumulating these. My argument is to reduce the data here to the most important bits, reference the links (especially to the videos), and merge it with Nick Berg. Yes it is speculation, but so is the Kennedy Assassination, and that is a better known and more popular discussion. Plus there is plenty of space on the Nick Berg page. Westifer 16:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not consider most conspiracy theories worth keeping and see nothing in this set to change my mind. Delete as unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep conspiracy theories are a huge part of wikipedia's appeal. We have a chance to separate the facts from the internet nonsense. Brittanica would never tell us about this. Clearly, anyone who wants this deleted is a Rosicrucian. ShadowyCabal

Definitly keep The theoires exitst, who cares if they are true or not. If that is the case for deletion then why not delete all conspiricy theory pages?
- You're right, we should just document conspiracy theories without passing judgment on them. Except the author of this article does pass judgment. He believes certain theories about Berg's death are true, and he wrote this article to promote them. Sorry, that's soapbox stuff. --Isaac R 03:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep this article, it was a good read. Maybe cleanup a bit. zellin 16:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Definitly keep The theoires exitst, who cares if they are true or not. --Striver 16:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Dude, take the time to read the previous discussion. This is not about whether or not there's any truth to the theories. ---Isaac R 18:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. zen master T 00:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify or Rewrite. It's a good idea for a topic, and even an accurate stub is better than an unrecoverable soapbox rant. Rewrite is ideal of course. Deco 01:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 20:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetback

This is a promo, copied verbatim from other webpages. Opie 01:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: This is a copy-vio; voting is therefore probably no longer necessary. Master Thief Garrett 07:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable, promo, possible copy-vio. Master Thief Garrett 02:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, copyright violation. Megan1967 04:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Promo. jni 06:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 20:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Han capital

This article is nonsense, and factually inaccurate. It's an article claiming the capital of the Han Dynasty lies in Guangzhou near Hong Kong. user:194.206.179.4's other edits have hardly adhered to a NPOV policy, and seem to be based upon promoting Cantonese above other Chinese dialects. Should be deleted. --Yuje 02:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete, I think information on the historical Chinese dynasty capitals is fair game, but that particular article is unreferenced and nigh-useless. --Veritol 04:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 04:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete inaccurate - the capital of Former Han was Chang'an and the capital of Later Han was Luoyang. What is more Guangzhou is Canton. Guangdong is the province. --AYArktos 08:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I vote Delete, but only because I think this is a poor way to organize information about Chinese history. Do we need an article called "Capital of the United States between 1784 and 1790" that says "New York City was the capital from 1784 to 1790"? (I probably have the dates wrong, but you get my drift) ¶ On the other hand, the accuracy of the is article irrelevent. VfDs are not the way to correct inaccurate information. ¶ The author's other misdeeds are also irrelevent -- we should consider each VfD case on its own merits. There are other procedures for dealing with patterns of abuse. ---Isaac R 06:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ashibaka (tock) 00:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 revised stub moink 12:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reception theory

Page is currently blank; I cannot really find enough about this theory to make it seem noteworthy outside of the bio page about the man himself. Master Thief Garrett 02:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are whole books about reception theory of various kinds. Go back to the version with Stuart Hall, clean up. Charles Matthews 07:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as written -- it's content-free. Keep the re-write. --Carnildo 21:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Reception Theory deserves its own article - it is a well known school of thought in academic literary criticism. I just wrote a very short stub to replace the blank page. Someone who knows more should extend it. Sheldrake 00:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The stub is fine and encyclopedic. It'll do for now. I'm getting a bit pissed at reading VfDs of articles that should obviously have just been cleaned up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The article as originally written consisted of the fragment "for more on the ideas in Stuart Hall's essay encoding/decoding, see reception theory". I would have tagged it for speedy deletion, rather than VfD. --Carnildo 21:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Not very constructive. Wikipedia's article on Stuart Hall, the famous media theorist, will tell you quite a lot about Reception theory--certainly enough to make a good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Fine stub. Shanes 22:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, as revised. I don't really know enough about the subject matter myself, but I assume the others know what they're talking about! Master Thief Garrett 22:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)Keep, it's fine now! Master Thief Garrett 23:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. Adequate stub. Vast improvement over initial page. --Dcfleck 20:54, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 content into Britney Spears and not leave a re-direct. Since the content was so short, I just copied it to Talk:Britney Spears to be merged and will now delete the listed article. moink 11:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Britney Live

not worthy of mention. Or is it? Master Thief Garrett 02:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Mrs. Federline. (BTW, Garrett, you may want to avoid making nominations in the form of a question without a clear statement of your own vote. People have gotten in trouble for that sort of thing before, although I definitely don't suspect any bad faith on your part.) android↔talk 05:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I just said "or is it?" since many many times I've said what I thought and been shot down--look at Main Street, Dallas, Texas. I thought I'd spotted this line already in the core Britney article, but a further look shows I was mistaken. Other MTV stuff is there but not this... but I certainly wasn't intending it as a question. I'll have to remember not to do that...! Master Thief Garrett 05:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Britney Spears without merge. - Stoph 05:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Britney Spears without redirect. Master Thief Garrett 05:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Britney Spears without redirect--AYArktos 09:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Secretcurse 02:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge/no redirect. Samaritan 15:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complex sales

seems to be some sort of obscure dicdef...? Or neologism? Master Thief Garrett 02:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete It is covered in as much detail in sales. Anilocra 08:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, now a better article has been identified... or Merge (w/ sales if cites etc. are added. Master Thief Garrett 10:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Potential for expansion. TigerShark 21:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep I posted this entry because it is a phrase that is commonly used to search on my business website, so others are looking for definitions of it. It is well documented in the business press, and I was planning to add cites later this week. If it gets taken down, I guess you'll save me the trouble of posting cites. Laura Ricci
- nonono, we allow and indeed encourage users to add to articles while they are up for Vfd!--indeed the changes may sway voters to change their votes. While we fully encourage expansion, perhaps this information you are providing could be covered under sales as a subsection? This page would then become a redirect to there, and people could find information about all types of sales, not just this, all in one categorised place. Master Thief Garrett 10:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep and hope for speedy citing of sources. Kappa 05:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge into context at sales, and add the cites there. R adiant _* 09:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge is fine with me. Do I do this, or does someone else make the changes? It seemed that Sales was getting too long, but I don't know what page length you like to use. Lricci Apr 28 2005

Today I find that 'Sales' is locked and recommended for disection into multiple pages. I'm a newbie, so I'll just check back later to see what the decision is about this page. Lricci 17:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schubert

this is vain. 'nuff said. Master Thief Garrett 02:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, does not establish notability. Megan1967 04:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability. jni 07:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment even though I've never heard of him (or any other swim coach), he's been a coach of the US Olympic swim team more than once, his USC teams have won several NCAA championships, he's in the International Swimming Hall of Fame, has served on the board of the American Swimming Coaches Association, etc. Do we have notability guidelines for athletic coaches? —Wahoofive (Talk) 20:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- But does he deserve a mention *outside* of that list? Should we merge some of this info there... Master Thief Garrett 21:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, should be merged if a catagory exists for this. Adun 19:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Olympic coaches are notable. Kappa 04:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Coaches who have coached Olympic medallists are certainly notable. Capitalistroadster 05:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. R adiant _* 09:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
since we have a (semi)-consensus, I now cast my vote: Merge, as above. Master Thief Garrett 10:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to what? —Wahoofive (Talk) 21:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I added to the article the NCAA championships he won at USC and I mentioned he has been the US Olympic coach. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Coaches of Olympic medalists are no more automatically notable than parents of Olympic medalists. Based on the current facts presented about him, I have to vote delete though I might change my mind if we knew why he was in the International Swimming Hall of Fame (and if the article mentioned that). Rossami (talk) 23:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep zellin 16:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ricci Family

Family history for a non-notable family—delete. -- JeremyA 02:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if this weren't nonsense, Wikipedia isn't a genealogy site, but as it is, this is nonsense, and I think I've read it before. Rick K 04:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, geneology. Rick you are right, this article has been on wikipedia before. Megan1967 04:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Can it be locked? Not that I suspect they'll be constantly re-adding it, but if it comes up once more this should be considered. No use wasting our time. Master Thief Garrett 05:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - You can keep it on your watchlist, even if it's deleted. You'll then notice if it reappears. Oh, and btw Delete. Radiant_* 13:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    - Speedy! No, you can't put it on the watchlist and you can't lock it – the problem with this one is that the author changes the title everytime. It used to be The Schluegenkopf family, later the Schluedenkopf family and last time the Rosso family. And it's a hoax, which that proves, if nothing else. Why isn't this speedied already? Uppland 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, geneology. Or can we Speedy this since it's been deleted in the past? Master Thief Garrett 05:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a family tree repository (I don't want to misspell geneology again.) Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. TigerShark 21:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as apparent re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo 21:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 17:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vorpal king

Page about fictional character. Claim to fame: he has "gained cult reputation in isolated groups." Web references to character and its "satirical RPG" are very few. Bottom line: it's a lame little satire that hasn't attracted any interest, and doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page. ---Isaac R 03:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as stated. Isaac R completely shot it to pieces! Master Thief Garrett 05:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. P Ingerson 20:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 17:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe S. Harrington's All-Time Top 100 Albums

Non-notable guy's top 100 list for a non-notable website. Rick K 04:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable, possible vanity. Because the list was written for a webzine (Blastitude) with a very limited readership pretty much does it for me. android↔talk 04:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A list from a non-notable guy from a webzine with little readership. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, not notable, self-promotion. Megan1967 04:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If Joe is so notable, where's his article? Gamaliel 04:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If anything Joe would have an article before the rest would. This isn't Amazon's ListMania! sorry... Master Thief Garrett 05:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. And Steely Dan at number one? Leithp 15:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. moink 12:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights

Transwiki to Wikisource. Rick K 04:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Only the actual language of Roosevelt's statement belongs in Wikisource, but the discussion of the statement - it's place in history, implications, and consequences - is very much an encyclopedic topic. -- 8^D ^gab 06:42, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Transwiki the current version, then rewrite and keep. —Seselwa 15:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki then rewrite (request, etc. as needed) per Sesel. Samaritan 15:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable political philosophy. Klonimus 19:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I like the idea of the transwiki, but what's left behind seems to contain a good deal of POV, so it needs to be cleaned up. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup/rewrite TigerShark 21:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep please because this topic is encyclopedic too Yuckfoo 01:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup but Transwiki Roosevelt's statements to Wikisource. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I just added a few opening paragraphs to this article, but it still needs to be cleaned up to become an adequate stub. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tranwiki the source text, neuter the POV and keep what's left. Notable part of history / political philosophy, especially in relation to e.g. the New Deal and etc. -- 128.227.194.46 06:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, not logged in. -- Tetraminoe 06:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep as is --- Do not delete FDR: is a powerful historical figure and should not be subject to revisionism -- is it POV or just the truth outside the POV of some

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 17:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonastolezan

Non-Encyclopedic. This is an article about a nonexistent dialect of the English language. Zero google hits. Should be deleted.

Delete. "The made-up accentual dialect of English" says it all. Rick K 04:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "The made-up accentual dialect of English" says it all. Master Thief Garrett 05:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --Angr/_comhrá 05:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity language. Megan1967 07:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete; it's obviously made up. The only Google hit is from a Wikipedia mirror. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bizarre. Leithp 15:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Right to exist

Summary to help guide admin decisions:

24: Delete - Humus sapiens, Pluvius, Master Thief Garrett, Guy Montag, RJH, Leifern, Klonimus, humblefool, AlanK, Jayjg, Wile E. Herresiarch, Viriditas, MPerel, Carbonite, Thryduulf, Zscout370, Carnildo, Chammy Koala, gren, Megan1967, Radient, Stereotek, Woohookitty, IZAK
1: Either turn into an article on the general concept of a national "right to exist" or delete as redundant. - Charles P.
3: Merge with Sovereignty, Self determination or Zionism and Redirect - Helpful Dave, Tomer, Mustafaa
4: Keep - LevelCheck, DeirYassin, Firebug, Blackcatsm

24/32=75%, 24/33=73%, 25/33=76%

Very few changes since nominated: [1]

COMMENT: User:Helpful Dave and I, who rarely agree on anything, both voted "merge and redirect". That's hardly a glowing "keep". My recommendation was redirect to self determination. Helpful Dave's was to to Zionism. I don't pretend to understand his rationale, but in neither case do I think these votes can legitimately be regarded as keeps. Tomer ^TALK 20:05, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Please doublecheck/fix the update of the voting record I've just made. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So when does voting end and the vote takes effect? Guy Montag 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ominously whisper "seven days!" like on The Ring, but no, it's only five. After that a decision is made. It's not necessarily simply "majority rules", if there's a roughly even proportion of votes on each side then the closing decision is "no consensus" and the article stays. Master Thief Garrett 23:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the information.

Guy Montag 19:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it was created solely to question Israel's right to exist. We already have Arab-Israeli conflict reflecting major views in an encyclopedic manner, Jewish state#Criticism, Anti-Zionism, New anti-Semitism, etc.

Comment Doesn't it seem a bit unbalanced that we have an article on New anti-Semitism but no articles on New anti-Arabism or New anti-Palestinianism?
- Go make them, Klonimus 00:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - No, we shouldn't make them. See WP:POINT. It would be bad to write more articles as bad as New anti-Semitism just to make a point. — Helpful Dave 22:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes we should, New anti-Semitism has been the subject of several recent books. Klonimus 06:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There have already been articles created(Anti-Arabism). In anycase, this is not the place to discuss the subject, so take it somewhere else both of you. Guy Montag 07:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge any NPOV content that isn't already in Anti-Zionism into that article and *delete. -Pluvius Talk
Merge any salvageable content into Anti-Zionism and Delete. Master Thief Garrett 09:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete This article is too POV and isnt fit to be in wikipedia.Guy Montag 14:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete agitprop. — RJH 14:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the article begs the question and is discussed (at great length and subject to endless edits) several other places --Leifern 15:20, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Either turn into an article on the general concept of a national "right to exist" or delete as redundant. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Anti-israelcruft. Klonimus 19:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Not really sure how I should vote on this. Klonimus -- help me out. Perhaps Wikipedia does not exist to pass judgement, but rather to document, eh? Perhaps our objective should simply be to document the claims that surround the useage of the term "Right to exist," without passing any judgement over its existance or nonexistance, pejorative nature, the moral value of those who use the term, its history of use, etc. etc. Haven't made up my mind yet, I'm sure you've got some consistent insights to share, though. BrandonYusufToropov 17:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, as I see it the extant article doesn't cover anything encyclopedic except for a bunch of anti-israel ranting disguised as NPOV. However an article on "Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars" by Yaacov Lozowick (ISBN 0385509057) would certainly be encyclopedic. Personally I think you should vote Redirect to Self determination Klonimus 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a balanced article which explores both sides of this contentious issue. Some Wikipedians seem to feel that only pro-Israeli views should be permitted. LevelCheck 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep agree with above commentDeirYassin 21:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There seem to be wikipedians who feel that there must only anti-Israeli POVs should be permitted. humblefool ® 23:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete It appears to be a debate. Nothing wrong with that, but this is not a forum for debates. Parts of it may belong elsewhere as others have stated, and it may be news, but it's not encyclopaedic. AlanK
Delete. Appears to be original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and keep a close eye on it to make sure POV axe-grinding (from both sides) stays out. The phrase "right to exist" garners approximately 249,000 hits on Google, most of which do refer specifically to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Furthermore, in virtually every negotiation between the Israelis and Palestinians, the "right to exist" is mentioned in some way, and often plays a critical role in the negotiations. It is an important concept that deserves a Wikipedia article. The existing article isn't terrible, although it could stand some improvement. Firebug 06:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete this diatribe. IZAK 12:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete after merging anything salvageably NPOV into Anti-Zionism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inherently POV and unencyclopedic. Carbonite | Talk 19:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unsalivably POV (and for the record I would vote the same on an article with the opposite POV as well). Thryduulf 20:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it filled with POV, original research and with unfair comparisons (Israel compared to the Union of South Africa, no way). Zscout370 (talk) 20:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This argument is specifically attributed to "Opponents of the right to exist"; it is not stated in the article as objective fact. LevelCheck 21:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - The original text states "Just as there was no right for South Africa to exist as an Afrikaner state, there is no right for Israel to exist as a Jewish state." The leaders of the Union of ZA made separation of the races with laws. The Israeli Government is trying to bring people in, making Israel a diverse nation. Zscout370 (talk) 23:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Improperly titled -- the title seems to be about a generic "right to exist", while the article seems to be about Israel's right to exist -- and it looks like it's redundant with a number of other articles. --Carnildo 21:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Protect from ever being re-created. --Chammy Koala 22:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. This is a valid term which is often bandied about in this particular conflict. However, we don't need an article at this location. The content is dealt with in several other articles. This should be a redirect to Zionism, unless someone can think of some other uses (perhaps some philosophical right to live), in which case it should be a concise disambiguation page. NB: the article (if it were to stay) needs cleanup and references, but isn't really that bad. The fact that some are capable of seeing this relatively balanced text as a one-sided attack on Israel reveals... well, I won't say. — Helpful Dave 22:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Beautifully (and surprisingly) NPOV article, but a non-subject. While supporters of Israel love to use the term "right to exist", there is no such thing as a right to exist, and to the best of my knowledge this remains nothing more than a political slogan used to put down supporters of one-state solutions (rather than some kind of international law concept which would merit its own article. So redirect somewhere - maybe Arab-Israeli conflict. - Mustafaa 22:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Gren makes a good point - maybe merge with sovereignty or diplomatic recognition? - Mustafaa 02:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: seems like Israel's right can be spoken about somewhere else... and the issue as a whole is akin to sovereignty gren 23:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, original research. Megan1967 06:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the above. R adiant _* 09:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Self determination...and we can worry about cutting out or neutralizing the POV content there. Tomer ^TALK 09:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I would recomend retitling though, perhaps "Israel's right to exist." The term "right to exist" is used in a number of other contexts. --Blackcats 17:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. POV. Stereotek 07:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV. --Woohookitty 18:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 18:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dylge

Non-notable (defunct?) Cambridge University student band. No apparent releases. Dylete Anilocra 08:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, and being potentially defunct doesn't exactly help its case... Master Thief Garrett 09:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A university Indie band from the late 90's, no evidence of influence or achievement provided. Average Earthman 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – AB CD 18:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Mabel

Something from a Cedric the Entertainer routine, I expect. Not worth a redirect, as it's too generic a name. sjorford →•← 09:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, probably just invented as a plot device. "He once claimed that he saw her naked." This tells me nothing, and is of no importance. I myself once accidentally saw my aunt naked when I was a child, but I digress... wait, why am I even telling writing this down? Master Thief Garrett 09:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 10:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Dsmdgold 15:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Rugby union positions. moink 02:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Row

Not needed as Rugby union positions already exists and has more detail. The title is also bound to cause problems.GordyB 09:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Rugby union positions - a much more comprehensive article Anilocra 15:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Rugby union positions. Megan1967 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 02:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem

I promise I will not suggest any more ideas on how to improve Wikipedia. I will not ever take part in any creative thought. Please delete this as soon as possible. I can not tollerate sarcasm anymore. I had enough of them in every project I proposed --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ — Davenbelle 10:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but mark as {{rejected}} — Davenbelle 11:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but mark as ~~{{historical}}~~{{rejected}}*. I have nothing against trying to improve Wikipedia or creative thoughts - in fact I encourage them. I just don't feel that this particular proposal can be NPOV. I'm sure that others will propose something similar in the future, and in such cases we can have this as a reference. Thryduulf 10:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- *re the best template, I think a modifed {{rejected}} would be best, noting it was a wikiproject rather than a policy. Thryduulf 01:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep as deprecated Wikiproject. Mark as such. This issue does come up every couple of months so keeping the history would be useful. R adiant _* 11:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as deprecated project, per Radiant. It might be a good idea for someone who is more familiar with the history of the issue on Wikipedia to compile a list of past censorship-related issues. There has been a recent spate of proposals filtering through templates for deletion regarding templates for adult content warnings, graphic violence, etc. This type of thing seems to come up fairly regularly, and it might be nice to have all the references in one place so we don't have to keep repeating the same arguments. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and mark as above. --InShaneee 14:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above. --Carnildo 18:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yep, keep as above. Samaritan 22:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 01:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This "project" hasn't been rejected yet--there's not even a discussion page. I'm not sure it's a project, though--it feels more like a policy proposal to me. Demi ^T/_C 07:23, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – AB CD 18:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Lambert

Delete. Nonsense. Should be deleted. -- Natalinasmpf 10:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. IMHO a speedy delete for obvious nonsense vanity. andy 10:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 10:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
speedy delete, just checked a dictionary - this is abusive --Doc Glasgow 11:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 02:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kukkuthakatte

2 Google hits - all mirrors of wikipedia. The city and district exist but this "place" doesn't on Google. I'm sure this well may be real. Conflicted and interested to see how the votes decide. Lotsofissues 10:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From same contributor as Ullal, which turned out to be real. Keep or merge with Manipal. -- Uppland 23:16, 26 Apr 2005

(UTC)

Keep. Enough information there for verifiability. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 12:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt face man

Not notable, doesn't distinguish, half-complete stub which I don't even know what its referring to. Should be deleted. -- Natalinasmpf 10:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Firth might be notable enough to warrant an article, see Salad Fingers for some of his other work, but Burnt Face Man is a "series" of two animations, and not encyclopedic. Delete Anilocra 14:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: promo, insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a funny cartoon, and it's not as psychotic as Firth's other cartoons, but it's not as popular as Salad Fingers to merit its own article. Nestea 00:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 12:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biasnewspaper

Student newspapers can be notable, occasionally, but should usually just be merged into the school article. This student newspaper, OTOH, doesn't even go on sale until Tuesday, April 26, 2005. Delete w/o merging. Meelar (talk) 10:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think an encyclopedia should be complete with the most information possible and this article does not contain publicity or advertising and is simply informative, i don't see why it should be deleted. Francescob
- User has ~15 edits, all related to this article (including listing it on List of newspapers...)
Sorry to tell you this, Francescob, but we generally object to vanity articles. R adiant _* 11:31, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're right, i will delete it now Francescob
- Note: above user later blanked the page in question.--InShaneee 14:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, vanity. --InShaneee 14:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not know how to delete the page, I thought that by blanking the page it would delete it, I'm sorry Francescob
Delete, I hadn't read the rules and I'm sorry Francescob 16:40 (GMT), 25 Apr 2005
- Only admins can delete pages, so we will have to wait untill an admin does it. Jeltz talk 18:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 20:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - NN. Original author seems to agree with deletion. SteveW | Talk 22:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are such a bunch of lazy arses who sit all day in front of the computer. You have no idea what it means to have a life.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 12:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kortney Phillips

His mother may be worth a mention - but really? --Doc Glasgow 10:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense (unless anybody knows better) TigerShark 21:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like nonsense or vanity. Sjakkalle 09:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This has to be joke. Leithp 14:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 12:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faqmagazine

[2] 15 Google hits. Possibility this entry for a new mag is promotional. Lotsofissues 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: promo/vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikispam, delete --nixie 03:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This is spam. 68.106.68.83

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. I have put merge notices on the tops of the articles but did not do the merging myself, preferring to leave that to someone more knowledgeable about Scrabble. moink 02:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double_letter_score, Double_word_score, Triple_letter_score, Triple_word_score

I can't believe we really need these. I would suggest merging into existing articles, but there's already an excellent exposition at Scrabble scoring examples. -- 150.203.32.254 12:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Merge the lot of them. R adiant _* 13:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Merge all four into Scrabble scoring examples. Korath (Talk) 13:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Korath. I can't imagine the terms being used outside the context of Scrabble. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ditto (2+1+1+1+1=6, should have played Merge for 8) —Wahoofive (Talk) 20:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect TigerShark 21:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Scrabble scoring examples. --Merovingian (t) (c) 22:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as Korath has suggested. NatusRoma 04:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect the whole lot of them. — JIP | Talk 06:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. moink 12:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squibby

Doesn't appear to be notable - website is a month old and has all of 350 hits Andypasto 12:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Oliver Keenan 12:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete same here. --Adun 21:54, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to BJAODN and delete moink 02:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pfirpfel

Appears to be nonsense - google has 8 hits on the word, most Wikipedia or mirrors. Others do not seem relevant (although I don't read German)Andypasto 12:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The German Wikipedia describes it as a subtle hoax: [3]. (If someone wants to verify that I've got the gist of the translation right, I'd appreciate it--my German is quite rusty.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN and then Delete; it's a pseudo academical article (cross between apple and peach ); BTW,the page you found in the german wiki is actually a nice one (a step on the way to BJAODN) Lectonar 09:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the article in German is a kind of scientific BJAODN. This article is nonsense. Note that the inventor's name, "A. Loch", if translated into English would be "A. Hole", i.e. this is a joke. SteveW | Talk 22:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Megan1967 07:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. moink 12:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum grill

appears to be a plug for um .. somethingAndypasto 12:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Uh... it appears to be a plug of some sorts, but even if it isn't complete nonsense it would be just an advert. Average Earthman 15:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Advertising --Doc Glasgow 18:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising (unfortunately that's not a speedy criterion) —Wahoofive (Talk) 20:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Write a real article about platinum teeth please! If under a different name, this should be a redirect. - Omegatron 01:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (pending). moink 16:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheval Blanc

Local brew-pub with no indication of notability. Delete. --Allen3 ^talk 13:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 07:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but concentrate on the vineyard, which is more notable. Grutness|^hello? 06:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was not quite clear (very few votes) but keep in some form, so it is now a redirect to Jennifer Chiba. moink 16:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Ending

Non-notable band that appears to have not completed its first album. Delete. --Allen3 ^talk 14:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Jennifer Chiba, though she's of limited noteworthiness herself. —Wahoofive (Talk) 20:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Needs expansion. Normally I would vote delete on these stubs but I think Chiba has enough notability to warrant this article staying if expanded. Megan1967 07:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete content (if any) and Disambig between Jennifer Chiba and Fairy tale, and the Marillion non-song on Clutching at Straws. R adiant _* 09:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If Chiba is notable enough to warrant an article, it should be at her name, not here. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 12:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keithtech

This is just a huge advertisement for a web company. Need I say more? Delete - Diskadia 14:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: blatant, shameless advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advert. Megan1967 07:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- blatant advert. - Longhair | Talk 17:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 12:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Lemonik

One of the "leading composers of our age", whose Google search picks up wikipedia mirrors and um nothing else. No hits for "Joe Lemonik". Dunc|☺ 15:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- doesn't have an AMG classical entry either. Dunc|☺ 15:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: promo and/or vanity. Come back in a few years, Joe. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 12:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was rather difficult to determine. There were only two actual votes, a delete and a speedy. Though there's not a large consensus, no one seems to be defending it, so it will be deleted. moink 16:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Others Plants in Hokkaido

Odd ramble about Japan and industry under bad title. Rmhermen 15:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I know all about where this comes from. It's a merge into a page like Japanese-German pre-WWII industrial co-operation that needs to sweep up a number of fragmentary pages]]. Charles Matthews 17:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 12:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a speedy and it's not nonsense. It is a paragraph clipped from a CIOS intelligence report from about 1945 on Japanese industry, based on questioning of a German scientist. Charles Matthews

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 12:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Maynard

Delete, blogger, non-notable until he actually gets somewhere with one of his many plans for world domination. FreplySpang (talk) 16:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, and as to "thirty years from now," Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. android↔talk 21:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Probable vanity. --Carnildo 21:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 13:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAPA

Comment: Hello. This is not a "joke" or "POV rant." MAPA is a real organization with over 20 active members from Mandeville, Louisiana. There is a meeting on Memorial Day weekend of this year to discuss a web site and publication of a book on its purpose. I can provide names, contact info, and meeting agendas if proof is needed. Thank you. Pajhonka 19:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, a whole 20 members !!!!! Proof of vanity right there. Delete. Soundguy99 18:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: 20 members may not seem like a significant amount, but it is in terms of Mandeville, Louisiana. Every organization has to start somewhere and for a young group in our area, this is a lot of members. The article was written to supplement the article about Mandeville for anyone interested in what we do. If you don't think this article belongs, that's fine, but there's no need to make fun of people trying to get something started.Pajhonka 20:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 20 members may indeed be significant in terms of Mandeville, Lousiana, but this is not an encyclopedia about Mandeville, Louisiana. Your organisation has to be more widely known to warrant an article here. No, I don't think the article belongs here. Neither do I think it's fair to make fun of you just because of that. — JIP | Talk 18:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either a POV rant or some kind of joke. I almost tagged it as speedy but wanted another opinion. I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 16:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This page (i.e. the VfD discussion) was blanked by an anonymous user. Somehow I kind of suspected it would be... — JIP | Talk 17:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The above notice was since removed by an anonymous user, who proceeded to change JIP's vote. R Calvete 19:07, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Delete. This "group" referred to doesn't seem to actually exist (ie, no google hits), besides it's POV and also vanity (since there seems to be no other indication this group exists. Add in the vandalism... R Calvete 19:07, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
Delete. Rant, article about a non-notable group. --Carnildo 21:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: joke/vanity, utterly insignificant either way. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Nalina

Non-notable porn actress. Article tells us all we need to know about her diet. Dbiv 16:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Seems notable enough, at least in relation to Google hits - not seen any of her work personally :) TigerShark 21:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: pr0ncruft. Another fine product of the adult entertainment industry; as distinguished as any random car that comes off the assembly line. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, on the basis that more people would want to know about her than any random car. Kappa 05:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand (beyond her dietary habits). Seems notable on Google, [4] although I would add that Google is not a reliable indictator when it comes to pornography and music. Megan1967 07:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Neither Playmate o' Month nor a Movie Actress. Nothing to distinguish her from 10,000 other random car wannabees. — RJH 15:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, and the internet's obsession with porn is well documented, so I wouldn't trust any google websearch in this field as establishing note. Average Earthman 18:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep How ever this article needs pictures. Klonimus 06:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Internet has plenty of pictures on the subject, though :) R adiant _* 09:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't exist in media other than the internet--nixie 03:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Dunfield

Vanity. Dbiv 16:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete this please. FYI this article was created by students, not the man himself. (Unsigned contribution from 156.34.224.25)
- That doesn't mean it isn't vanity. He may be a very good teacher at Fredericton High School but that doesn't make him a legitimate subject for an encyclopaedia. Dbiv 21:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - We think reverence is a better term. While it is indeed 'coloured' by our point of view, there is nevertheless valid information contained therein: for example, even I (the co-writer) didn't know his wife- and daughter's names, and I imagine many others would learn something even if they knew the man well, like myself. One commented that he is not 'notable'. Well this is quite subjective; we certainly think so, and we know of many who would find this article informative as well as amusing who have taken one or more of his courses. He deserves to be recognised - there are few teachers we can say this about.
Delete Non-notable and POV - (although I am glad to hear he has only one wife - mind you, if he had two he might be notable ) --Doc Glasgow 00:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I do appreciate the sentiment but he is not notable - as of yet, anyway. If you do appreciate the fellow in that extent, you could create full webpage for him. Assuming, of course, that he wants to reveal all his personal details in the net. I assume you have asked him? - Skysmith 09:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. School teacher. There are a very large number of school teachers, and few will get any recognition whatsoever outside of their local community. This is not the job of Wikipedia to correct. Average Earthman 18:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- query At 1.24 Kb, the text with which we are concerned takes about 0.000075 cents of storage space. I need not remind you that this is not an ordinary encyclopaedia, yet your reasoning for deletion because of 'non-notability' seems to suggest it should contain a similar amount of information as a physical one; that 1.24 KB is a precious amount of storage space compared to the fame, or lack thereof, of the subject in question. I understand the motive for keeping the information on wikipedia clean and relevant, but it seems absurd that these 'non-notables' should be deleted for any other reason. If this is relevant to 1 person, is that not worth at least 0.000075 cents?
  - No. This is also not the point, if it is only relevant to one person, it is not likely to be checked adequately for inaccuracy and vandalism. Average Earthman 08:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - It was a rhetorical question - I don't appreciate your spite. Anyway, I did not say that it was only relevant to one person; it was hypothetical, and to prove a different point.
Do not Delete*. Mr. Dunfield's accomplishments greately surpass those of the stereotypical high school teacher. He has greately influenced the lives of many if not all of his students. He teaches advanced level classes and always teaches with knowledge and great enthusiasm. For these reasons he is definitely notable and deserves to be in this encyclopedia.
To all the anonymous posters, please go read the Guide to Votes for deletion and perhaps the criteria for inclusion of biographies and Wikipedia:Verifiable. This is not personal but there are some very good reasons why the community has chosen not to accept biographies on every person imaginable. My vote is to delete. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, admiration by students isn't enough to make this guy notable--nixie 03:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 21:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 21:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Key

Probable vanity. Only claimed notability is for writing a book which is unknown to Amazon. Dbiv 16:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete he can come back when the book is published (or even finished)--Doc Glasgow 22:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- See children, drugs are bad. - Longhair | Talk 18:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Star Wars series

The articles Super Star Wars, Super Empire Strikes Back and Super Return of the Jedi appear to refer to non-existent future episodes of the Star Wars franchise, or possibly to video games. Someone seems to have speedied the second one. Dbiv 16:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. They are nonsense summaries of the movies with the word "super" tacked on title. Rmhermen 16:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ these, for the love of God in Heaven and all that is pure and good. Ground Zero 17:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, now that I know they are about video games, I guess I am compelled to withdraw my vote on the basis that I think that thre is room on Wikipedia for most information that is of interest to some group. It is galling that I have to do so about something that is so trivial and meaningless, especially when it is being pushed by Starblind, who has often votes for deletion of information about unsuccessful political candidates and municipal councillors who are of interest to me and others, but not to him. Vote to keep this trivial and unimportant crap. Ground Zero 21:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep and obviously cleanup. All three are VERY well-known (and crazy-hard) games for the Super NES. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: I'm currently working on cleanup duties for these articles. I fixed Super Star Wars (suggest Keep), re-created Super Empire Strikes Back (suggest Keep), and as for Super Return of the Jedi I recommend a redirect to Super Star Wars: Return of the Jedi which I just created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable video games, however a couple of the articles need to be properly formatted for redirects. 23skidoo 21:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Keep, and Keep. Notable. —Xezbeth 21:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
keep them all please Yuckfoo 01:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep all, notable. Megan1967 07:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Super Keep all. N-Man^talk 10:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Google clearly establishes existence. Notable video games belong on Wikipedia.-LtNOWIS 03:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep on the first two. Redirect on the third. This series is both notable and memorable. Nestea 00:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This series is certainly notable, and its existence is verifiable. [5] [6] A Man In Black 10:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 17:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vested interests

Unsourced nonsense added by an environmentalist User:Vince who went through injecting POV into articles over a year ago and hasn't edited since.

(Brian0918: please sign the nomination itself, so we don't waste time figuring out who submitted it)

Delete or at least try to neutralize. --brian0918  17:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yeah, the article has nasty NPOV issues, but the concept itself could be the basis for a good article. People are too quick to VfD articles they find to be obnoxious. If it's the content that bothers you, you should stubify the aritcle or work towards NPOVING the text before you give up and demand the article's deletion. ---Isaac R 21:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - subject of vested interests is not limited to environmental issues. The article could expand to include, for example, various vested interests in sentences for fraud, forgery or corruption or various political biases - Skysmith 09:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, an {{NPOV}} tag would be an alternative to Vfd in this case. Kappa 11:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 07:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete The concept is more appropriately a dicdef. Various examples have content homes elsewhere. Tobycat 03:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. Tobycat is right that the examples belong in other articles, not here. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dictionary entry. Quale 21:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary moink 17:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue

Unsourced nonsense added by an environmentalist, User:Vince, who over a year ago started injecting POV into articles such as Paper, and also created the article Vested interests.

Delete or at least neutralize. --brian0918  17:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Basically a dicdef. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Martg76 18:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Now that the POV has been neutralized, it is a dicdef.Tobycat 03:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Don't bother to transwiki. It's a phrase self-evident from the definitions of the two words. Rossami (talk) 23:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Captain Cutthroat Sal

Not notable / Garbage

Delete Obscure garbage --Adun 21:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense with no context. Entire contents are a limerick about Cutthroat Sal. Google results for "Cutthroat Sal". Wikipedia is not a vehicle for in-jokes among friends. Samaritan 22:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speed deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic fallacy

Several problems with the article. 1) the title "Economic fallacy" is a bit of a misnomer. Everyone agrees on what the "fallacy of composition" is. There isn't a single "economic fallacy" with the same consistent definition. 2) the content of the article is mainly a POV-heavy critique of the lending practices of the World Bank and IMF. Criticsm of those institutions is already well documented in their respective articles. For those two reasons, a merge or a redirect don't seem useful to me... I think it's better just to delete the page. Feco 19:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete The current content is a POV essay, and even if it were replaced, I'm not sure what we'd write in an article about economic fallacies. A fallacy under one theory can be perfectly valid under another. Rhobite 19:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV rant. android↔talk 20:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I recently saw a short text made for university use about popular misconceptions about economics, but it was something of a POV piece. Feco and Rhobite are right; the title isn't really salvageable. Nor is an article that begins "To suck, to suck, the very blood to suck” a likely candidate to merge... Delete. Samaritan 22:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: rant. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 07:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete; this article is poorly written and unencyclopedic, and it is inherently POV to brand specific economic theories as "fallacies" using the Wikipedia authoritative voice. Firebug 16:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My first suspicion was that this was a recreation of the deleted Economic superstitions (which was, itself, a recreation of Economics superstition) but it's not. This is a new POV rant. Delete. Rossami (talk) 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokai

Nonsense article - Gobeirne 19:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as patent nonsense. I'll tag it. The planet Zigon? Suuuuure... android↔talk 20:30, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion obviously, a patent nonsense. Afonso Silva 21:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond H.J.Groom

(and it's redirect)

Non-notable, though probably very worthy, pastor. DJ Clayworth 19:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanescence

Bandcruft. 13 Google hits, none of which demonstrate any semblance of notability. Kelly Martin 21:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

They're a local German band, thusfar without a website, but they do exist. -- R.E.

Delete - clearly a joke Mcsweet 21:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: joke/vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Mertz

This page was up for deletion once before but I decided to list it again. The article seem to be a total vanity article. When discussing whether or not to delete the article before, the subject of the article, who is User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was asked to refrain from editing the article. He has been unable to do so and has made almost weekly edits to it changing wordings, listing himself as in categories (such as philosopher) which he may or may not actually be qualified as. He did seem to appear in a few Google searches, but that's not very hard to do. I myself have published books, have taught classes, and have many of the same qualifications as this man seems to have, but I don't feel the need to glorify myself or make a completely vanity-like article. The fact that this user himself is the one who's done most of the workl on the article, and has made the majority of the edits, especially after being asked not to do so, is troubling to me and puts the reputation of wikipedia at stake. {See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz/Archive for the previous deletion vote) --ScottyBoy900Q 15:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge editors to read Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, which reads in part: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. (Note also that ScottyBoy900Q has recently nominated himself for administratorship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottyBoy900Q).

My book on Addison-Wesley has sold about 3500 printed copies to-date (but has just gone to second printing in the last week), but has been downloaded approximately 70,000 times in its electronic version. The website gnosis.cx is essentially exclusively for archival publications of my articles first published in other places. It has received visits from approximately 750k distinct IP addresses (which only loosely correlates with eyeballs, of course). However, the original publishers, chiefly IBM developerWorks, O'Reilly ONLamp [7], and Intel's (now terribly unorganized) developer site, certainly receive more readers on first publication (of my articles specifically) than does my archival site. So in other words, my readership is approximately two orders of magnitude beyond the (admittedly minimal) recomendation WP provides for notability.

I took a look at Google Scholar for my name. It's a cool tool; I haven't really used it before. There seems to be a "DB Mertz" who is an ethologist, and is not me. But looking through the 67 basic hits, I see that 38 of them are really about me. Fewer than half of those concern any work for IBM. It appears that I have a number of citations and acknowledgement related to my philosophy work that I had not been aware of. Cool! See: [8]

Also of interest—at least to me—is Google Print. See: [9]. Interestingly, all of the 11 books that contain my name in their text are genuinely references to me. It's delightful to me (for vanity reasons) that books as diverse as Women's Health Solutions, Understandings of Russian Foreign Policy, Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, Python Cookbook: 2nd Edition, Fear, Truth, Writing: From Paper Village to Electronic Community, and Sexual Investigations all mention me. Mostly just by way of brief acknowledgments or citations of a single paper; I'm certainly not claiming that any of those are significantly about me.

The basic "Google test" shows about 85k hits on my name, about 95% are to me rather than someone else sharing my name. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google Scholar turns up some half-dozen hits (admittedly in IBM publications) so I don't feel it's total vanity although it is somewhat self-promotional. I too am disturbed by the edit pattern, but it did fairly clearly survive the previous Afd and the request there by Smoddy (Rabbit and pork)that Lulu not edit the page further can hardly be taken as binding. Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's popssible though people voted to keep under the assumption that request for him to not edit would be followed. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so - all the votes were cast before that last-minute request went in. Just to be be clear though Slac did enourage no edits and finally Smoddy requested no edits! Dlyons493 Talk 17:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Mertz was not a wikipedia contributor this would be a slam-dunk delete, there's no reason to come to a different conclusion because he is a wikipedian, jguk 16:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with jguk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 18:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did nothing of note. Grue 19:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is just absurd (again). Yeah I'm the guy the article is about, and I've done a number of small edits on it, but the substantial content was written by our fine admin SlimVirgin (and contributions by other top-notch editors). But either way, "David Mertz" is both meaningfully discussed in a bunch of Wikipedia articles (on computer programming-ish topics), and read by hundreds of thousands of readers (a magnitude more than watch the minor porn actors with articles, or ever attended some high school with an article). I mean, 85,700 google results on "David Mertz" isn't an accident (about 95% are the right david mertz). Nor is the high Alexa rating on the site gnosis.cx where my articles get archived. Contrary to my "sworn enemy" Jguk, my contributions to Wikipedia are completely non-notable in this article, and that's why they are not mentioned. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that you're so dedicated to making sure the article stays seems to justify my claim that its for vanity. I have a degree in history...does that mean I should list myself amongst the most notable 20th century historians and create an article about myself...no! You just don't seem significant enough to warrant having your own article. The very idea that you edit it and keep editing it to me indicates its just for self promotion. If we made a page for every minor person who works in every occupation, we'd have so many rubbish articles. Where do we draw the line? --ScottyBoy900Q 17:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am too much biased to actually put forth my opinion on this matter, but I say, as an administrator, that this is by no means a speedy keep. I cannot see any way in which it is in bad faith. [[Sam Korn]] 17:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let the voting run its course. --ScottyBoy900Q 17:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. Fawcett5 20:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this may sound fan-boyish and David has pointed the AfD request out to me, but I do find David Mertz to be notable, especially in programmer circles (3 hits on Slashdot on his name is notable in my book). He is a widely read, widely cited, widely published author. Then there is the Open Voting Consortium; David is the CTO and was recently nominated for the Open Source for Elections panel of the State of California, together with Bruce Perens. Now, if Bruce Perens came over to make some edits on his bio page, should we boot that article as well? --MJ^(☎|@|C) 20:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I don't think that articles on people should have to jump hrdles set higher than video-game characters, American villages, or pop singles; this article would in fact jump hurdles much higher than any of those, and (as Fawcett5 and others have commented) clearly meets the normal criteria for notability and verifiability. jguk says: "If Mertz was not a wikipedia contributor this would be a slam-dunk delete"; I don't actually understand the refernce (I think that it's to basketball, but that's the best I can do), though I understand its general meaning — and it's surely the other way round: if the subject weren't a Wikipedia contributor no-one would have thought to delete the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's published by a reputable publisher, among other things. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes the Cyrus Farivar test. Kappa 02:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mel Ettis. Xoloz 02:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - do you see how many citations there are on that? go try to find an article of similar length with that number of references. SECProto 03:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - change of vote from the last debate, for a few reasons - firstly, the points raised by nominator I by and large concur with, and secondly, I can affirm that I had a definite expectation (even if I did not phrase it as such) that Lulu would not edit the article. The fact that he has is, frankly, disappointing, and such practices are fairly clearly discouraged throughout Wikipedia. Jimbo manages to refrain from it, despite being professedly disappointed with the state of his article. In terms of notability, I last time was of the view that the balance of evidence brought to light favours it, but I'm less convinced given that there only seems to be work within an IBM context. Slac speak up! 03:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, votes is votes. But the guideline at Wikipedia:Autobiography is just: If you do so, please only add verifiable information and be especially careful to respect the neutral point of view. Noting objections or corrections on the talk page may be appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NULL Jeff says this person is not notable. margit mueller merkey 03:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (Not a sockpuppet of merkey, was my wife, and she can vote). Gadugi 16:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I talked to my wife and she says withdraw her vote since I told her how to vote, so it probably should not count. Gadugi 22:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To nuance this vote: Jeff Merkey is in dispute over the contents of his biography with the editors of the article, of whom Lulu is one (and so am I). He escalated this to a Request For Arbitration (now rejected, link is to a past version) and this vote is most likely retaliation. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 09:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, even the 5k boundary is ridiculously low. --fvw * 13:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. paul klenk ^talk 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Google Scholar hits, sales and him being highly cited and referenced outside (and to a certain degree within) Wikipedia (also see reasoning of other keep voters). If his editing his own article is a problem you could try getting a binding decision on it, but published authors like him are quite notable enough for an entry. Disclosure: Lulu contacted me, but I don't remember any prior contact with him, so I think I'm still objective in the matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mel Etitis, MacGyverMagic, and established Google Scholar hits. Hall Monitor 18:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems neutral and verifable enough. Disk space is cheap. Bryce 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (account created Oct 10, all edits on that date were votes on AfD)[reply]
Keep per Mel Etitis and others. Neier 22:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable author; to my mind, meets WP:BIO, and any POV or vanity issue can be dealt with. MCB 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Particularly per SECProto. 172 | Talk 09:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject is clearly a sufficiently interesting character that not having an article on him might prove embarrassing later. On a purely personal basis, noting the style of opposition on the talk page, I'm not inclined to give in to non-verifiable slurs. If a certain user can justify their problem with the article (not with David/Lulu himself) with rather more substance and less whining I might be inclined to take it more seriously. —Phil | Talk 14:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you draggin' me into this as a deletionist? If the article can be cleaned-up, devanitized, and uncensored, I'd probably want to keep it. Davey's only cliam to notability is as a political activist, and it's censorship to keep removing references to his unsavory sociopolitical comments about Jews and Israel. Tanya! Ravine 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this person is notable and we need to stop this systemic bias now Yuckfoo 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that if he weren't a Wikipedia editor, this article would unquestionably be kept. Also, voting "delete because I don't like the edits he's made" makes very little sense. AfD isn't the place to dispute the content of an article. Go edit the article or its talk page. RSpeer 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep - sufficiently notable to justify inclusion--User:AYArktos | Talk 21:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no reason to doubt that this AfD was brought in good faith. However, while I had personally never heard of David Mertz, there is sufficient evidence of notability, through google searches, and online bookshop searches, etc. His book "usually ships within 24 hours" at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. (The more obscure titles have "usually ships within two months, but may not be available at all".) The book seems to be popular and to sell well. Obviously, it was against Wikipedia policy for Lulu to have started the article, but he explained in the first AfD that he was unaware of that policy at the time. If there are POV problems or factual errors, the article can be edited. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. David Mertz, how can you see you have only added "minor" edits to the page when not only did you start the page but continued adding until half the history is your edits? --Fir0002 07:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fir0002, do you have a rationale to delete the article? If you object to the content that David added to the article, take it to the talk page or edit the article. RSpeer 19:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought my question was pretty self explanatory, but to put it formally, I vote to delete because I belive it is a vanity article. --Fir0002 08:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As is noted in the article talk page (and the prior failed VfD), I did not write the article. I copies it from a bio at another wiki that discusses various computer people. Yeah, I performed the cut-and-paste, but not the composition. In any case, take a look at the edits: I made pretty many, but they're stuff like typos and wikification, overwhelmingly... nothing that even comes close to NPOV issues. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly don't think that it should have been you who copyed the text to make an article on yourself. --Fir0002 08:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is this comment even remotely relevant to the notability of the article subject? If an editor edited improperly, the proper mechanism is RfC. Of course, there is no prohition on autobiography editing if it meets NPOV; so the case is tenuous anyway. But even if true, it's irrelevant to an AfD. 71.208.214.195 20:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on substantiated non-trivial (though not major) notability. Edit pattern isn't directly relevant to whether we should keep the article. Merkey controversy isn't relevant to whether we should keep the article. Tanya R's conflict over things the subject said or wrote outside his area of notability isn't relevant to whether we should keep the article. Barno 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddya mean, "outside his area of notability"? He doesn't meet the criteria as an above-average academic or as an author. (That 70000 number he claims doesn't count; no-name bands have given away 250000 free downloads of albums that they couldn't sell 250 of.) If Lulu's notable, it's for his politics, and it's wrong to see the article get consored in that area. Tanya! Ravine 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I just said. There are more important committees in California then the one he's supposed to be appt'd to but their members don't get articles. Tanya! Ravine 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that Tany Ravine argues that all these utterly non-notable things about my alleged political beliefs (nothing I really believe, of course) ought to be in the article; but then argues the article should be deleted because those non-notable things might be included. (david mertz)

Keep based on the qualifying publishing information and minor notability. The difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is that we are not constrained by space and thus can include minor notables if they meet some basic criteria. This was on the fence of keep/weak keep for me, but ultimately I think it should stay. (el_amante) 19:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The subject and the article cannot be judged separately, and in this case, the article is clear self-promotion. I believe that the only reason we do not have a specific policy against editors working on their own articles is the clear unenforceability of such a policy. Chick Bowen 02:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does this even remotely make sense?! If you think David Mertz is a bad person, add the text "David Mertz is an asshole" to the article (if you think such can meet WP:NPOV and WP:V). If you think Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is a bad editor, create an RfC or the like. But how can either thing being even slightly relevant to the obvious notability of the article subject? 71.208.214.195 19:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minor notability established. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More google hits for David Mertz than many articles/bios on wikipedia. IMO, Lulu editing the article is, however, not ideal. Ban e s 10:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not a wikipedian, this article would not even exist here. Fails 5K test. Gadugi 16:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Please don't call my wife a sockpuppet. In addition to being incorrect, it's also disrespectful. Gadugi 22:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comment made above, that this vote is a retaliation against Lulu over a disputed biography, still stands. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 12:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I see that Jeff's "wife" withdrew ~~his~~her vote above. So it looks perfectly proper now for Jeff to cast one delete vote; it's not for us to proclaim motives (as obvious as they are in this case). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I SEE that this self-serving article is the result of WP:AB all over the place. It's the ultimate in hipocrosy to revert edits in other articles under claims of WP:AB when this popinjay article dressed in the plumage of a peacock is paraded around on WP. This article is an eyesore on the internet and should be deleted. 67.137.28.187 19:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ordered several of this authors books from Amazon and ohter sources, and they are so rife with credits to the work of others, I would suggest that only 10% of their content is by the author. The remaining 90% of their content appears to be blatant plagaurism from the work of others. Note Notable. Delete stands, and not on the basis of retaliation. 67.137.28.187 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I've only published on book that can be obtained from Amazon. So I guess Jeff bought several copies of the same title just to make sure they all contained the same "plagurism [sic]". :-) (david mertz)

Delete violation of WP:AB, vanity. First edit written by Lulu. More than half the edits are additional entries by Lulu and few of those to revert erroneous information.--MONGO 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Autobiography. I'm surprise that a person, with PhD training, think that it is okay to write an article of himself in wikipedia. It is clear violation of independence and nature of encyclopedia, and filled with conflict of interest. Keeping this article is an extreme risk to the credibility of wikipedia. So, the reviews we get will be "In wikipedia, some biography articles were written by the subjects themselves". Do you guys want this to happen? This is a speedy delete because the whole wikipedia project is at stake. Please read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. --Vsion 06:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 keep. moink 12:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Lemke

Vanity. Page is a near-copy of Jay Lemke's personal home page at UMich. Kelly Martin 21:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite. Accoring to LOC, he has two publications to his credit (Talking science: language, learning, and values and Textual politics: discourse and social dynamics, has some notability. Megan1967 07:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite. The entry of a person is inevitable to contain some factual information that almost the same in the similar topic articles. This situation happens alot in entry of musicians, bands, etc.--Pinc 16:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 17:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Braingle

Advertisement. Kelly Martin 21:47, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep and expand. 141,000 Google hits is pretty good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
keep those are a lot of its Yuckfoo 01:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Send to cleanup; delete if it doesn't get expansion and a POV-ectomy within a reasonable timeframe. Current contents not particularly encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 04:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: link spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expands. Appears notable. Megan1967 07:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I rewrote the article a bit to have a more encyclopedic tone. I am not sure that it helped or not. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Might be notable, but it still smacks of advertising IMO. --Jemiller226 06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean or Boot. I also agree with Jemiller226 but i also think, if this is NOT cleaned, it should be deleted. --

Gemini531 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A girl that I know.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, therefore keep. moink 03:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Norman

A political candidate is not inherently notable and a google search doesn't turn up much on this guy. Delete. Andypasto 21:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and the entry does no harm whatsoever. As he's ranked tenth on the Green Party's list, he has a significant chance of getting into Parliament — the Greens won nine seats last time, so an increase of just one seat would see him elected. The fact that his name doesn't show up on Google probably has something to do with the fact that I misspelled it — I won't try moving it until this is resolved, though.
- Fair enough, but could you at least tell us the correct spelling so we can research his notability? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry. The correct spelling is "Russel", with one l. Google search here, 232 hits. -- Vardion 22:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - That's still a hard one because it's a pretty common name. I added "Green" to the search and pulled 47 Google hits, and even then roughly half were other Russel Normans, making the actual score somewhere around 20-25 Google Hits (and keeping in mind that this is the New Zealand version of Google here). I'm going to have to vote delete for now, though obviously that will change if he actually gets his seat. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      - Okay. I would just like to note, though, that the NZ version of Google uses the same database as the others — I think perhaps the algorithm is different (ranking NZ-relevant things higher, for example), but the number of hit isn't inflated by using the NZ version. (Perhaps that's not what you were implying, though. If not, sorry for the misunderstanding). -- Vardion 22:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A just-now emerging political figure in small New Zealand is not likely to Google-test well, but his high place on the electoral list of one of the world's most successful Green parties makes him quite notable. Keep, and I will resubmit it for vfd myself if he doesn't win the seat on the list of a party in the election rumoured for late July, and no later than September this year. Samaritan 23:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if, as per Vardion, the guy has a half-decent shot at getting into NZ parliament .Meelar (talk) 23:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but move to the correct spelling. His chances of election may not be as high as suggested above, but they're certainly not zero, and we're not in the business of predicting the election results. Whether the article is worth keeping can be debated after the election. Note that Vardion is adding short bios of all candidates in this election with a non-zero chance of being elected, and I think that's very worthwhile for us to have.-gadfium 00:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that I'm writing bios for "all candidates in this election with a non-zero chance of being elected", but I'm trying to make sure that anyone who eventually is elected isn't a red link when it occurs. Personally, I would like to include all candidates (after all, what harm would it actually do?). But that's probably not going to happen. -- Vardion 01:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - What, even if they're of the level of Tarquin Fintim-Limbim-Whimbim-Lim Bus Stop-F'Tang-F'Tang-Olé-Biscuit-Barrel, who stood in the Corby 1981 by-election in the UK? (He took his name from a Monty Python sketch, and yes he was a student) Average Earthman 18:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually, I think that someone like that would actually be more worthy of an article, as he sounds considerably more interesting than most other by-election candidates. Basically, my view is that including minor candidates doesn't in any way hurt Wikipedia, and so just so long as the information about them is verifiable and NPOV, it might as well be included. If there's someone willing to create the articles, of course — I certainly wouldn't consider the lack of complete coverage to be a gap or flaw in Wikipedia. But there's no need to worry that I'll be attempting something like this — I doubt most Wikipedians would share my view, and I'm quite prepared to abide by the consensus. (Although I still think that Russel Norman fits well within the scope of Wikipedia — he actually stands a chance of being elected.) -- Vardion 20:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep because wikipedia isnot paper Yuckfoo 01:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. GrantNeufeld 02:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not elected = not notable. Also agree with Andrew. R adiant _* 09:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep wikipedia is not paper, but move to correct spelling. - Drstuey 00:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete but without prejudice against re-creation if he wins the election. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete political hopefuls--nixie 03:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to 2004 in sports moink 07:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2004 soccer tournaments

I don't think this page is going to be doing much in the future. 2004 in sports covers any information necessary and this article currently seems to be only a list of three rather irrelevant events with links. Unless this article becomes something of good standard i'd say delete. Hedley 22:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Better covered in 2004 in sports as Hedley states. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to 2004 in sports. Rick K 23:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete extremely minor tourneys, not even worth a mention in 2004 in sports, ones a youth club tourny, another is a county amature tourny, and the other is a 3 on 3. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

- Well, I didn't say merge the contents, just redirect the title. Rick K 19:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, already covered in 2004 in sports. Megan1967 07:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bizarrely lists two obscure Alabama tournaments but omits the 2003/4 UEFA Cup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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 deleted as recreate by Broken Segue. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Food Mart

This is a hoax article. It has been deleted before. This should be a straight up-and-down delete vote. Harro5 02:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

If it's the same content, it can be speedied as a recreation. Kappa 02:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And...[edit conflict]....I just did that Broken Segue 02:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (pending). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Holechek

Former spouse of a notable person. Lacks individual notability. --Allen3 ^talk 22:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Chuck Norris' coattails aren't that big, and most of the hits are articles on Norris, and/or mirrors/forks of this article. No notability of her own. Niteowlneils 04:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete lacks any achievements other than marrying someone famous--nixie 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 moink 07:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

Delete all micronations. Rick K 23:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article needs to be re-written in a NPOV but I see no reason to delete it.MicahMN | Talk 23:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. From article: the population of people actually living on the islands is zero Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and NPOV. This group has gained high-circulation press coverage in Australia; I'm personally aware of three different news reports in recent months. --Gene_poole 23:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
keep this too please Yuckfoo 01:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't a "micronation", it's a batch of press releases. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete micronations and "secessionist" movements that don't actually secede. android↔talk 03:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Then we should delete Quebec sovereignty movement! MicahMN | Talk 14:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay, maybe that was overly broad. My point is: people who want Quebec to secede from Canada actually live in Quebec. No one lives on these islands. It's more a publicity stunt than an actual movement, though I am reconsidering my vote based on the press coverage. android↔talk 14:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Kevin Rector (talk) 03:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Per Starblind and Calton, etc. Niteowlneils 03:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another ridiculous micronation. Indrian 05:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: joke/promo. Destroy all micronations. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and cleanup. Received press coverage in Australia. Megan1967 08:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep on the basis of high-circulation press coverage. Kappa 11:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Lots of media coverage. EdwinHJ | Talk 13:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Provisional keep if someone comes up with their proposed law of succession. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If the keep votes are based on press coverage, could we have some links to press articles? None have been given to verify this. SteveW | Talk 22:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've just added the 2 most recent media references of which I'm aware, from Australia and the UK. --Gene_poole 02:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - good luck to them. - Longhair | Talk 09:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsensical. R adiant _* 09:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's more than a 'micronation' article. It documents a political protest pertaining to a very relevant cultural phenomenon: gay marriage.Tobycat 03:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's not a successionist movement, not even a micronation, really. It's more of a political stunt, I agree. But it seems to be a somewhat notable political stunt since I heard about it, outside of WP, over here on the other side of the planet. And we do have articles for notable political stunts. Jonathunder 07:05, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
Well, I'm inclined to agree that this was a political stunt rather than a real attempt to create a micronation. It also appears to have been a flash in the pan - more appropriate to a newspaper than an encyclopedia. I wish we could transwiki to WikiNews. As it is, I have to vote delete. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I see no reason to delete it. Jasenlee 09:27, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – AB CD 20:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Mandalia

Delete as vandalism KFP 23:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Jeung san do moink 17:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sangsaeng

I'm sorry, what? This makes no sense. Rick K 00:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be a principle of Jeung san do, each of which has been spun out into its own article. Should probably be merged into the main article (which needs serious cleanup), except it may be a copyvio from [10]. Chris Johnson 02:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 08:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This article contains two quotations which also appear in the above website. That alone is not copyvio. SteveW | Talk 22:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake - the paragraph above has been slightly edited so it's not an exact copy. This article still contains more than that, however - the article wants cleaning up and this paragraph should be rewritten. SteveW | Talk 22:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
not sure what to do about it but it isnt really a copyvio Yuckfoo 16:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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