Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page contains the page history of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion from 22:22, 15 May 2002 (UTC) to 06:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC).
This is an archived copy of VfD. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for the current active version.
If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.
Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:
- Kept
- Deleted per the deletion policy
- Sent to cleanup
- Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
- Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)
Things to consider:
- It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
- Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
- Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.
AfD etiquette:
- Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
- Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
- If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
- Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
- Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.
You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist
28th
- 27th
- 26th
- 25th
- 24th
- 23rd
- 22nd
- 22nd
- 21st
- 20th
- 19th
- 18th
- 17th
{{VfD_frontmatter}}
Decisions in progress
[edit]Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.
May 23
[edit]{{VfD-KKSmith}}
{{VfD-Hanyo}}
-->>>>>> Deletion debate
{{VfD-Glad}}
{{VfD-AberSeeSaw}}
{{VfD-BenWilson}}
{{VfD-CollegeRoad}}
{{VfD-NuttyNorman}}
{{VfD-DavidBarker}}
{{VfD-CheShA}}
{{VfD-Sean_Flowers}}
{{VfD-The_Black_and_White_Space_Marine_on_the_Black_and_White_Bike}}
dicdef. Had vfd added on May 23, does not seem to have made it here. Ianb 23:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old as needing transwiki to Wiktionary for quite some time. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Wiktionary. Geogre 03:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{{VfD-Nalgene}}
{{VfD-Call_of_Duty_United_Offensive}}
{{VfD-Alphabetical_List_of_Hoboken_streets}}
May 24
[edit]{{VfD-The_egg_and_the_chicken_problem}}
{{VfD-ThePress}}
Guff was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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
Dictdef for foreign language. Possible candidate to move to Wiktionary. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 07:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
- Delete: Extremely suspicious dictdef: "Guff" is a common AmEng word for "sass, disrespectful speech," and the citation in this article is to Madame Blavatsky's group. Geogre 15:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete In English, guff means nonsense, which describes this article. Wyss 18:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No Preference Guff is English. It comes from the Hebrew language as most english words originate from other languages. The description is accurate for English, but as mentioned above, perhaps does not cover all the ways the word is used. In "Madame Blavatsky's group" and quite possibly other groups, this is the meaning of the word. Knightt 19:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. dictdef. --MPerel 21:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Similar to Wan Ling Record. This was contributed by a user who was only around for one day and added only quotes. This article consists entirely of, not surprisingly, a series of quotes. - Nat Krause 14:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a name of some Buddhist text [1] and this looks like a collection of quotes from it. I would be glad if Wikipedia had articles about Buddhist texts but they should be in encyclopedic style. Not collections of quotes without any explanation. Andris 14:52, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
Text copied from front page of the site (Alexa rank of 127,106) which is the subject of this page. I'm uncertain whether the site is notable enough to have an article, but the current content is just an ad. — A.M. 18:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement for website. Also now listed as a copyvio, but that's irrelevant if we delete it anyway. No evidence that the site is encyclopedic, although it appears to be well done at first glance IMO. Andrewa 20:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Ad Wyss 20:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Ad Trust 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Ad Brody 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Ad MAtty 20:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ad Jayjg 20:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Ad, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 22:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely, positively delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Flashback to May: deleted 3-0. The previous version of the page is apparently no longer in the undelete database, so I can't say that it is a repost of the same material (which would make it a speedy). No vote. --rbrwr± 14:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- keep - highly relevant to the web development and graphic design community's history
- Obviously worthless. --YixilTesiphon
- Relevant as documentation of an experiment in self moderation and community building online. mrRed
{{VfD-UppercaseDay}}
May 25
[edit]{{VfD-Jason_Richey}}
{{VfD-Bandwagon_Oklahoma_Music}}
{{VfD-Tom_Jackson}}
{{VfD-Windermere_Real_Estate}}
{{VfD-Massage_Therapy_School_-_NMSNT}}
{{VfD-Jetsam}}
{{VfD-True_Magic}}
{{VfD-Stepping-stone_democrat}}
Non-notable musician. Name only gets two Google hits as a musician and one as an album cover designer. RickK 20:51, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete musical vanity/self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. SWAdair | Talk 02:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. Since bands are all out of business and rappers and DJ's are in business, I suppose that means that we'll be getting 4 times the number of these articles, now. Geogre 03:31, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I listed it as a speedy since this same article was deleted a couple of months ago. Can we make it go away again? - Lucky 6.9 18:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{{VfD-debate_Trosh}}
{{VfD-Toas}}
{{VfD-Jerome_War_Relocation_Center}}
{{VfD-Tarppy}}
May 26
[edit]{{VfD-debate_White_nationalist_FAQ}}
{{VfD-Sexdecillion}}
{{VfD-footjob}}
{{VfD-Star_of_the_County_Down2}}
David Pearce was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.
I know that this article has been listed on VFD twice already, but you guys need to understand what is going on with this article:
This article is obvious googlebombing with the links, each "article" is really a link to one of the many thousands of domains this guy owns. These links are also found in many other related articles. Im sure David Pierce or an associate himself has been adding most of these links.
This guy owns these domain names: http://www.hedweb.com/paradise.html
By owning such a gigantic amount of cross linking domain names, his websites dominate many drug searches on google. David Pearce thus then might be notable enough for these facts, but these facts were removed from the article.
edit by the guy who put this on vfd:
Don't believe this guy is notable because of articles or interviews mentioned here, notice that most of those are hosted on his own websites so they are questionable. He might very well be notable for the gigantic amount of domain names he owns, all with some form of original content on them, which tend to dominate many search results, especially for obscure drugs. The problem is however, it is very likely him or a friend who created this article, or added the links to it, so its always a very potentially dangerous article.
- (Above unsigned entry is from User:67.180.61.179).
- Comment: Previous VfD discussions can be found at Talk:David Pearce/deletion (nominated 26 May 2004 - survived on a split vote) and Talk:David Pearce/Delete2 (nominated 10 June 2004 - discussion terminated when it was pointed out that this was a renomination of a very recent discussion). Rossami (talk)
- David Pearce is a British visionary...bwhuaahaa...oh vanity alright. Delete. Wyllium 19:58, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
- Delete or edit down to stubbitude. --jpgordon{gab} 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As it is, it's nothing but a link farm. Delete. DS 19:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. silsor 19:41, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional. Slightly off-topic, but people might want to take a look at Talk:American World University#Handling promotional links. I'm suggesting that whenever someone has qualms about the promotional effect of a link but wish to preserve it as a service to readers, that it be replaced with a substitute from tinyurl or similar services. To my surprise, this is a controversial suggestion, but I'd like to explore it further or see whether others have better ideas. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Hooooooo boy those are some links! Putting nowiki in front of all of them works well, and while the article is on VfD, we're supposed to do that anyway. I'd almost have seen this speedied for patent nonsense. He wants to "abolish the chemical substrates of suffering?" What? I suffer, but I'm not sure it's on a chemical substratum level. Geogre 20:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "the abolition of the chemical substrates of suffering in all sentient life.". Um, okay. Even if we got rid of the excessive links, this language itself makes it delete-worthy. Delete. RickK 20:58, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. --DMG413 22:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Jayjg 12:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, Promo --Improv 15:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: vanity, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Since Pearce is obviously a notable figure, the most sensible thing to do would be to shorten the bibliography section and delete all its links, which I have done. Loremaster 20:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What is your evidence supporting the judgement "obviously a notable figure"? I'll admit that I don't see it and consider this currently a delete candidate. Rossami (talk) 06:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As a leading figure in a movement that is getting increasing media, academic and political attention, Pearce should have an article. And, since the controversial content has been edited out of the article, this dispute is now moot. Loremaster 16:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I would call Pearce a "obviously notable figure", but his major work, The Hedonistic Imperative, is well-known within transhumanist communities. -- Schaefer 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What is your evidence supporting the judgement "obviously a notable figure"? I'll admit that I don't see it and consider this currently a delete candidate. Rossami (talk) 06:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, this was quite likely created as a vanity page, but if the links can be kept off, it shouldn't be a problem. I'll admit that his only well-known writing is The Hedonistic Imperative, so while there's no profound need for a page just about him, the page has been edited to the point where it's no longer just blatant self-promotion. -- Schaefer 20:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If this was created as a vanity page, it was not done by David Pearce or his associates - I know this fact personally. Some people are quick to play down the notability of others for obvious reasons. Given that there is no such thing as an unbiased attribution of value or notability - we should instead thank this fellow for his pioneering and visionary work. Ask yourselves if the abolition of suffering is more important than one's contribution to an impossibly "unbiased" collection, life is short.Sean Henderson 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Note that Sean Henderson is the name of one of David Pearce's associates (as mentioned in the article)67.180.61.179 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. While I find a great deal to dispute with the man and most of the Transhumanist movement I think at least from with in the movement his works are discussed and he's moderately well known. Notable? I hope not, but I wouldn't make that judgment for anyone else. —Florescentbulb 02:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
{{VfD-Nick_Bostrom}}
World Transhumanist Association was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.
If David Pearce gets vfd'd, his organization ought to get put up for a vote as well. --DMG413 15:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP. This organization has been getting some significant attention due to the public interest in, and press coverage of, transhumanism. Let's not get carried away due to the problems with the David Pierce article. Loremaster 16:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'd rather not delete it for guilt by association, but what does this article actually say? It says, "WTA was founded by X & Y. It's goals are good. See the following 6 links." Abstain, pending any indication of notability whatever for anything good (as opposed to infamy for being a spam factory). Geogre 19:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely notable. --Improv 20:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't like that logic, we can't eliminate anything just because its creator is non-notable. - Lifefeed 21:12, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons stated by Loremaster. GRider 23:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pearce's notability is questionable, but I consider the co-founder Nick Bostrom notable and the WTA itself even more so. -- Schaefer 21:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Definite keep. I would like to see some expansion though, maybe on the lines of what sets this transhumanist group apart or makes it unique among the others. Any takers? Inky 04:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, and BAH! on Transhumanists. —Florescentbulb 03:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete link repository. Might as well say North Valley Clown Alley was founded by Bongo the Clown and other clowns. They win awards. Everyone loves clowns. See the following 8 clown web pages. and y'all know I love clowns. Pedant 08:04, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
- Keep, strongly disagree with Pedant's analogy here. Stop clowning around, deletionism is serious business. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 17:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Trollminator 21:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
{{VfD-Poof}}
{{VfD-Karmann}}
Old discussion from VfD
[edit]Discussion concluded on June 1, 2004
Note: There are remnants of other VfD discussions in page history. jni 07:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. No Alexa data [3] [4], no indication on website that there are any other members of this "art movement" besides David Kam. - Hephaestos|§ 20:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- "Vanity" barely covers it, in my humble opinion. It's on the borderline of patent nonsense and original research. This has gotta go, friends. - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Vanity. UninvitedCompany 23:21, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Quite explicitly unencyclopedic. Currently also listed as a copyvio, but more likely vanity IMO. (Unlikely to be both.) Either way delete. Andrewa 00:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Reasons given above. Thue 10:24, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity or copyvio. Andris 22:45, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
{{VfD-LUX}}
{{VfD-Arab_Khamula}}
{{VfD-Partit_Nacionalista_Liberal_de_Catalunya}}
{{VfD-UNaXcess}}
{{VfD-Cairns_State_High_School}}
May 27
[edit]{{VfD-Guanica-Bay}}
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Vollis.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Vollis is a team game/sport, invented, first played and coined in 2002 AD. [...] Vollis is set to grow quite large in the near future and there is a distinct possibility that it could be an Olympic sport by 2012-2016. I can't find any references via google. Vollis doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article in wikipedia. Thue 14:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The final claim that it may be an Olympic sport by 2012 is patent nonsense, and contributes to the impression that this is just a sport thought up by a bunch of kids, and that it hasn't spread much outside that group. Also, a search for the word 'vollis' on search engines produces large numbers of hits for a folk artist called Vollis Simpson, but nothing related to this game. Average Earthman 16:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- "2002 AD," no less. Delete as patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 18:45, 27 May 2004
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Looks like nonsense. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:35, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense. Abigail 21:30, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it, even if the assumption is made that kids or some other people you wish to call unnotable invented it, how do you think sports that are played worldwide began? Isn't the Wikipedia a place for people to access any information of interest? If you can't find it on Google after idly clicking around, think of how difficult it would be for someone to find it out of genuine interest (rather than cynicism) without the Wikipedia article? Boutros Boutros
- I just adore sockpuppets. They're so cute and cuddly. - Lucky 6.9 16:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Just to answer the claim by a poster who has never posted anywhere else - apart from the fact that the majority of 'vanity' articles on Wikipedia are contributed by teenagers who appear to lack a proper sense of perspective, the utter obscurity of the game means it is not currently worthy including. As for 'if you can't find it on Google after idly clicking', I used both Google and Teoma, and found only articles about Vollis Simpson or pages in German which my admittedly abysmal grasp of German suggests to me are about some form of table football, one mention of the chairman of the President of the Pan-Macedonian Association, and one reference to US soldier with the surname 'Vollis'. Happy now? Average Earthman 17:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well well well, contempt for developing games, disregard for new users to web communities, dislike of teenagers.........Sounds to me like you have a touch of conservative elitism in you. Some people obviously feel uncomfortable when there's changes happening in the world that upset ideals of a concrete state of reality...Fair enough, you can't find the thing on Google, still I think this site's entire purpose is for information, or am I wrong? Boutros Boutros
- Information, yes, but information about somewhat established stuff of generel interest, ie informative stuff. There is no indication that vollis has grown outside the group of teenagers who invented it. The problem is also that the information is not verifiable. Delete the article for now, but if vollis ever gets widespread we should have an article about it. Thue 09:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If it becomes widely known, we can recreate it, but it does not merit an article now. Andris 02:02, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. For verification see this News thread from 1994, or this google search. It seems it is not only a game but also a bicycle brand. Why don't you deletists work on verifiing these things instead of just listing stuff all the time. Boutros Boutross point is a very good one, even though it doesn't look like this term was coined in 2002....
- No. I looked through google hits from your search (ones which were in English). There is exactly 1 hit about vollis game. The rest are mostly about people with first/last name being Vollis. 1 google hit does not justify inclusion. Andris 19:50, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Mr.Bits.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Orphan, dubious. Unvarifiable, vanity or prank? Top google hits for "Mr.Bits" don't seem relevant. Zero google hits for the terms Mr.Bits Chicago Comedian together, no hits for "The Bits & Clone Show", Bitskateers. -- Infrogmation 18:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like vanity or prank. Thue 19:06, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. As interesting as it was to read, I must concur. Acegikmo1 19:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not buying it. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:27, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Probable vanity, by anon. Andrewa 01:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Either this is a real term presented poorly or it's the greatest piece of quackery I've ever seen here. Is there a physicist in the house? - Lucky 6.9 18:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- From what (little) physics I know I can't find any inaccuracies. I think it would be more appropriate to list this at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention. I have listed it there. Thue 18:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Real term poorly presented. Move to Clean-up. I'll try if/when I can find my old textbooks. Rossami 20:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- "Quantum phase transition" gets over 7000 google hits. Clicking on a few google hits suggest that the page isn't blatent nonsense. I don't know enough of quantum physics to know how accurate the information is - but since I lack the knowledge to judge the accuracy, I won't vote for delete. Abigail 21:04, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Real phenomenon. Not a good VfD listing IMO, we should be listing and voting on things we do know something about (as others have said more gently). There are other places for asking questions. As Wikipedia grows this becomes more and more important. Andrewa 21:09, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- In either case it doesn't belong on VfD. If it is a real term presented poorly, it is still clearly a encyclopedic topic and doesn't belong on VfD. On the other hand, if the person who posted the VfD request doesn't understand the topic well enough to determine if it is "quackery", it doesn't belong on VfD. Keep. ElBenevolente 21:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- That's perfectly OK with me. It's not that I didn't understand the topic. It was so badly written that I simply couldn't comprehend what I was reading. There was a patently nonsensical article here last week that was couched in pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. I wasn't certain if this was the same sort of thing, hence my electing to bring it here. It's already on "pages needing attention," so by all means, keep. And let's try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum, OK? - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - Mikkalai has revised the article. It's certainly more readable now, anyway. Average Earthman 17:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled List of people who have not commited suicide.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
The most ridiculous list of people I have seen here so far, as everyon not on List of people who commited suicide can be listed there. I was tempted to delete it by speedy deletion directly as being patent nonsense. andy 20:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- LOL. I though it was quite funny :). Move to BJAODN and delete. Thue 20:19, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. But it seems we might have a use for a List of people falsely thought to have commited suicide or some such. Rhymeless 20:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hahahaha. I haven't laughed like that since BJAODN:Bill Gates. I love this part, under self-sacrificers: The pilot in Air Force One movie who moved his plane in front of a missile to save the President. Delete, Bad Jokes. blankfaze | ♫ 20:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- This is just dumb, and horribly incomplete. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:31, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. BJAODN for sure. Andrewa 21:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. anthony (see warning) 21:19, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Absurd. There are some ridiculous lists outthere, but this is bizar. --Wyllium 22:05, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
- Is this really any sillier than List of people? Meelar 22:30, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- No, but it's redundant to that list. anthony (see warning) 22:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Hilarious, though. Everyking 22:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Split into List of people whose non-suicidal cause of death is confirmed and List of people whose death is rumored not to have been suicide. Then delete both of those lists. Dpbsmith 22:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Now those would be interesting lists. However delete this one. It's silly, but not particularly funny, so no BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- No reason to delete. Instead list on List of articles that have not been deleted by implosion... then delete - Tεxτurε 23:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Last time I made a link like that, we ended up with Nude Wikipedia editing. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:33, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not even clever or funny. Fuzheado | Talk 23:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- not funny. delete, do not move to BJAODN. --Jiang 01:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, BJAODN. -Etaoin 01:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh come on Jiang and Fuzheado get a f***ing sense of humour! funny but should be Deleted Dainamo
- Wish I was as easily entertained. Delete. Average Earthman 17:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Made me giggle. Now delete. — Chameleon 14:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC
- Funny? Some people are easily amused... Delete. Denni 19:11, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
- Redirect to list of famous alleged suicides, or delete. -Sean 00:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete to BJAODN. Is funny - at least in terms of the section on people who have not committeed suicide because they are still alive (Which is just wonderfully random). Is also unencyclopedic. Snowspinner 00:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- It says something about the editor's perception of Sarah Jessica Parker that she's first on the list of people who have not yet commited suicide. Is that a statement in favor of her health and sanity... or against it? Hmmm. -Sean Curtin 06:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- This is really funny, especially the "two categories". Remove from the main namespace, of course, but worth BJAODN'ing. VV 03:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete present content, but the page could be of interest if it listed people who were thought to have died by their own hand but didn't (i.e. 'the report of my death was greatly exaggerated' cases, people faking their death in order to escape custody or the courts). Rewrite suggested therefore. --VampWillow 19:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, but this is definitely BJAODN material. The first category cracks me up. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:13, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the pages entitled Kassandra Hiroshima and Kassandra HiroshimA.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete the articles.
Ladies and gentlemen. Presented for your voting pleasure is an individual of eclectic background who garners an incredible two hits on Google, both referring back to his/her own articles on other sites. - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Wow. Now THAT is messed up. A "a punk rock gender queer", eh? Anyone know exactly what that is? This article is bizarre. The author keeps using "zie" in place of "she" the whole way through. Wowwwww. Delete. blankfaze | ♫ 21:51, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh. I see that "Zie" actually means something now that I've read the Sie and hir article. blankfaze | ♫ 21:54, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Vanity, delete. --Wyllium 22:22, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough google hits. Thue 22:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity pieces have no place here. - jredmond 22:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity Deus Ex 23:48, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both. No real hits. Niteowlneils 16:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The Land 18:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with the reasoning above. Andris 19:58, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Cannot be found on either Allmusic.com or Google. Vanity? --Wyllium 21:58, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
{{VfD-Digivolve}}
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Nothlit (Animorphs).
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to move the article to Nothlit, merge and redirect to Animorphs (book series), and delete the redirect from Nothlit (Animorphs).
There's nothing in this article that actually means anything, and even what it appears to mean is too trivial to be worth mentioning. Tonusperegrinus 22:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Same as above. --Wyllium 22:50, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
- Delete. -Sean 22:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Have any of you read any of the Animorphs books? I read a few 3 or 4 years ago and the definition is right. I've tried to clean the article up a bit, but it's still little more than a stub/definition. But I think if Pokemon characters and all sorts of other fictional nonsense gets articles, than so should this. KEEP. blankfaze | ♫ 23:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Animorphs (book series). I have moved the article to Nothlit to match the existing (broken as I found it) link from this article for the moment. IMO the redirect from Nothlit (Animorphs) is useless and should in due course be deleted. Andrewa 01:50, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, excellent. I was just coming here to put this up, and imagine my surprise when it's already VfD'd. Delete. All information in article has been merged into Animorphs (book series). PMC 03:47, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- As it has been merged, redirect Nothlit, delete Nothlit (Animorphs) -- Cyrius|✎ 03:57, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
May 28
[edit]See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heck/old
{{VfD-Mudgik}}
Apologies, was not logged in.
I do not expect you to understand the importance a mutable archive of Mudgik would provide the Mudgik community. The remark is blunderous; importance is relative.
It is not a website it was a MUD.
It exists today in two forms (I am still researching them).
For more MUDs that aren't 'that important' please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD#Popular_MU*s
Keepers. Yeago 04:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Delete - as the pages states, a student who works for Canada customs at Lester Pearson Airport. Burgundavia 03:31, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
It's already gone. RickK 03:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Dicdef of a slang term. And if it were to be kept, it should be moved to Bikeshedding. RickK 03:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Burgundavia 03:57, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Advanet.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Some explanation? What is it? Is this worth keeping? RickK 03:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Seems there are several companies, but probably just corp vanity. Burgundavia 03:57, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Krupo 04:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone gives a good reason to keep it. Thue 19:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, agreed. Andris 20:00, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Is there going to be one of these for every Grand Slam in every year? By the end of the year, will there be four of these on the Serena Williams page with eighty names listed? At the end of five years, will there be twenty of them on her page? RickK 04:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Dicdef. Meelar 04:22, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Wiktionary. ☞spencer195 04:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- This one might be expandable past a definition into a real article. If no one does so within 5 days, though, Wiktionary and delete. Any future author with more to say can easily recreate the current contents. Rossami 18:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Miscibility doesn't deserve a full article. Relevant information belongs in articles about liquids and solutions or solubility.--Atemperman 03:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
VfD Footer section
[edit]This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.
Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.
You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.
- To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
- To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:
I – Put the deletion tag on the article.
|
II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.
The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well:
|
III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.
|