Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 30

< May 29	May 31 >

May 30

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, no real consensus on what to do with this one, but it could be merged somewhere. Algebra I was kept so it seems reasonable to preserve this page as well. - SimonP 14:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Algebra II

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Algebra I

This article is about the course "Algebra II" which is being held after "Algebra I". Algebra I is up for deletion, and probably this one deserves the same fate, as it is unencyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 00:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete --R.Koot 00:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to algebra. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:34, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Delete. -Sholtar | talk 00:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No need for a redirect. Paul August ☎ 01:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC) Keep. I've changed my mind. I can now see some merit for keeping this article, perhaps as a redirect, if so then probably to mathematics education, as Uncle G suggests below (redirecting to elementary algebra is also a possibility and might be better than algebra). This will mean that other analogous articles (e.g. "calculus I", calculus II, calculus III) would also be desirable. Paul August ☎ 15:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
For the reason given in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Algebra I, Redirect to mathematics education. Uncle G 01:51, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Delete Revolución 02:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematics education. K1Bond007 03:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
D unnecessary, no redirect. Fawcett5 04:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Xcali 06:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every country has different course standards. No doubt this is country specific without giving context. Since people typing such a thing aren't looking for Algebra a redirect to mathematics education seems best. (same reasoning as Algebra I). Mgm|^(talk) 07:03, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle 07:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algebra. Nateji77 09:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't redirect. There's no subject matter called "Algebra II". We should not preserve every half-backed article concept as a redirect. The redirect doesn't make it any easier to find Algebra and might actually lead a somebody astray, since a redirect for "Algebra II" makes it slightly harder to perform a general search for that string. The fact that there are several opinions as to how to redirect should serve as a hint that a redirect is a bad idea. ----Isaac R 16:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh pshaw, there is a subject matter called "Algebra II" - I distinctly remember hating it in high school. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:06, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  - Good point. Let's keep the article, and add material about boredom and ennui in high school! ----Isaac R 23:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As BD2412 says, there is subject matter called Algebra II. That doesn't mean that it has to be discussed separately from mathematics education as a whole, where its relationship to Algebra I (and vice versa) can be made plain. Indeed, a redirect will ensure that that doesn't happen. Moreover, what makes you think that someone going to an article with the title "Algebra II" is looking for the mathematical topic of algebra and not the teaching standard (covered in mathematics education) specifically named "Algebra II"? Uncle G 03:39, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Delete, don't redirect, per Isaac R's original point. carmeld1 00:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematics education -- Decumanus 04:10, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Keep, Algebra I has grown into something decent, and I'm sure this one can as well. _ SimonP 13:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect needed. Even among USA high schools, different states use different standards for what material is in the Algebra I vs. Algebra II curricula. Universities on the semester system use a different Algebra II curriculum than ones on the quarter system. Algebra is a real subject matter that's consistently defined; Algebra II isn't. Barno 19:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Algebra II is real subject matter. That its definition varies from goverment to government is something that can be discussed in the article, as has been done with Algebra I. Or it can be discussed in a general mathematics education article, along with the reason that so many governments have not-so-coincidentally all picked the same names (Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, Pre-calculus, and so forth) for these mathematics education standards, with readers sent there via a redirect. Uncle G 19:15, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Delete. Thousand of high schools and universities have courses called Algebra II and the contents will be different for each. DJ Clayworth 20:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algebra Vegaswikian 01:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~~~ 16:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into and redirect to mathematical education. No way should this redirect to Algebra. -R. S. Shaw 21:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 14:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Full outer shell

non-encyclopaedic babbling Ben davison 00:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Generated by software. Pavel Vozenilek 00:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~to noble gas~~, and merge any useful information. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:42, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect to noble gas -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 01:03, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Fawcett5 04:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't redirect to noble gas, any element can have a full outer shell by gaining or losing electrons. Kappa 06:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Egad - I was thinking only in terms of atoms, not molecules. You are correct, sir! I therefore join my colleagues below in saying redirect to valence shell. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:04, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite, or put more content into Valence shell and redirect. This information is useful, because the Valence shell article makes no mention of the effect of having a full outer shell. We're jumping the gun by nominating it for deletion because it's not written properly, regardless of whether it was computer generated. --Barfooz (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect useful info in Valence shell per Barfooz. We need info on full outer shells, but not in the current format. Mgm|^(talk) 07:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Valence shell. -Sholtar | talk 07:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and completely rewrite. This could be a useful topic as per Barfooz. Megan1967 09:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to valence shell; this is a concept most usefully discussed in context. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite It needs an introduction so that the reader immediately knows what the topic is about. But it looks worthy of its own topic if it is cleaned up a bit. Sonic Mew 20:32, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
keep, but in big need of a rewrite. The article should remain, however, no need for merge/redirect. UkPaolo 22:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content into Valence shell and redirect. Many things have outer shells; the fullness described here is only relevant to electron valence levels. Heck, my car has a valance (two a's, one e) panel under the front bumper with a full outer shell after I drive through mud. Barno 19:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite. JamesBurns 08:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to valence shell. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayapataka Swami

non notable 66.68.156.175 00:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the claims in the article are true (and the nominator does not suggest otherwise), than this person is as notable as any leader of any religious sect. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:40, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
NOTICE: The user who nominated the above article has quite recently nominated about a dozen others with exactly the same message, "not notable". They are all related to cult worship, dynamics, and history. It is my opinion that this anon is probably promoting an alti-cultist adgenda on Wikipedia and should be cencored. The pages he submits for vfd should all be marked distinctly as keep unless they are really not notable. Most, however, do have a claim to notability. Thanks for your consideration. Ryan Prior 01:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Religious leaders are generally notable. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weird, certainly not in my area of interest, but a valid article. --Un focused 03:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same anon trying its best to remove articles that have a valid history. POV warrior for sure. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Definitely notable -CunningLinguist 08:54, 30 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

40mm grenade

nonsense/borders on dicdef; nothink links here Avriette 00:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Perfectly good stub on a valid topic that I'm sure that the military weaponry fans will have a lot of fun expanding. It may require a move later, but since I don't know the official military designation of it, it's fine here. --Un focused 03:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
K I think this could be expanded. Fawcett5 04:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's expandable. Drop of a note at a Weapons WikiProject and wait a bit. Mgm|^(talk) 07:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I forgot to mention, I'm one of those gun-nut types. Anything that can be said about the 40mm grenade can be said on M203, which is the only weapon in fact chambered for it. In fact, that is like me saying the previous sentence, and providing a link off to chamber indicating that a chamber is where the munition is placed. It just doesn't make sense. Avriette 16:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I added ten additional weapons that use this caliber grenade round. The M203 is not the only weapon chambered for this round. --Un focused 03:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per what Mgm said -CunningLinguist 08:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- A classic example of how a really bad article can become a really useful stub. The anonymous author contributed only a brief description that relates the 40mm grenade to the M203 and the US military, which suggests that this ammunition isn't important outside those contexts. But a particular kind of ammunition is worth documenting separately if it's used in a wide variety of weapons -- and a little googling reveals this to be the case. ----Isaac R 17:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — standard munition, widely used. — RJH 19:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Halibu tt 22:02, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
keep and expand UkPaolo 22:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Violence. Klonimus 07:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revised article and mark for further expansion. Notable and widespread implement of inflicting death and injury. Barno 19:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Grenade. There is nothing sufficiently notable about particular brands of modern grenade to warrent seperate articles. ~~~~ 16:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Omlansky

Video game artist with 16 Google hits [1]. Possibly vanity, but even if it isn't theres nothing special about him compared to the thousands of other video game artists. Hedley 01:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D - NN/unverifiable Fawcett5 04:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Xcali 06:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, I don't expect game designers to have a lot of google hits, but I don't know the games either. Mgm|^(talk) 07:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Artist for two games I've never heard of. I wouldn't necessarily consider artists for video games I have heard of notable. Isomorphic 08:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, UkPaolo 22:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 23:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least one video-game artist a year wins some award which demonstrates significance within the field. Otherwise, even if a game is a top-seller, its designers and programmers and artists aren't generally notable, unless a major news event somehow leads to widespread news coverage of the individual (rather than the game). Barno 19:47, 31 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 - deleted - SimonP 14:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry of the deRojas family

I'm pretty sure this is just an insignificant person's family history. Having tried several names out of this text, which is a dead end in need of wikifying anyway, I get either no Google results or just one or two. I can't see a line of notability here. Hedley 01:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity. Delete or transwiki to WikiCities where a genealogy Wiki can be started for this cruft. — Phil Welch 02:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D - genealogy vanity. But now I know everyone's date of birth and mothers maiden name! yeah! post the SSN somewhere too, then we'll be getting somewhere! Fawcett5 04:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete. Rick K 06:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete send them to a genealogy site. Xcali 06:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonfamous genealogy - Skysmith
Delete - The family tree ends here -CunningLinguist 08:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, genealogy. Megan1967 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the place for genealogy. - Etacar11 23:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying I suck, right?! Mattderojas 21:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's nothing personal. - Etacar11 02:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOT, it states that Wikipedia is Not a genealogy database. R adiant _* 13:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to read it, but I have my own site where I had already posted this. At least "that" page won't get deleted by other users. I'm not saying other people because there are administrators on web hosting sites. But basically, the page here may be gone (which it was when I last checked) but at least I had backup. Sorry about my last comment because I don't suck! I only just got a little angry when people critized me and/or the page. accept apology? - Mattderojas 17:46 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly, no problem. R adiant _* 09:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Get thee to Wikitree! I've started you off. Delete. Uncle G 21:58, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Maybe someone can delete this now? UkPaolo 09:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 14:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Vidoll

I promised I'd keep away from VFD, but this one doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Deltabeignet 01:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep away! Try as you might, there are pages that can't be speedied but really need to be deleted. Get rid of it!
Delete Xcali 06:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, their discography is quite extensive. [2]. I wonder what the logic behind the above two votes is. Kappa 07:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but cleanup and expand. They dont appear to have released a full length album per se but there are quite a few EPs listed. No allmusic.com or artistdirect.com entry, however since they are not an American band and they dont appear to have many English releases, it is understable. Borderline entry. Megan1967 09:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, On a second review, this unfortunately doesnt meet Wikipedia guidelines. Megan1967 09:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Megan and delete. R adiant _* 12:22, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
'Keep' this band is signed and has a discography they meet the criteria for bandsJCS 15:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Visual kei, which is not a very long article. Apparently a significant genre/style in Japan that does not appear to have spread much outside of Japan. I can't tell if this group is a significant representative of this genre or not. Soundguy99 16:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appear to have a significant discography and have recorded live shows so would have completed a Japanese tour. If they have had a record chart in Japan, they would definitely qualify under the Wikimusic project guidelines. At least one album released by Universal Japan. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This definitely needs a lot of cleanup, but I do not see anything against keeping borderline cases. Andrew pmk 02:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Cleanup and reformatting essential, plus at least a link to the Visual Kei article. This is a band I haven't heard of before, so if they have publicly released anything substantial (ie international releases), it'd best be listed, and maybe linked. --JB Adder | Talk 05:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This really should have gotten a music-importance template before being brought here. Vegaswikian 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I put the search terms "Vidoll kei" in Google and got over 4,600 hits. In addition to being the "flagship" band of the Under Code label (for whatever that is worth), this group is named on fan sites and blogs all over the world (US, Germany, Italy), they were covered in Vol. 1 of Cure, a Japanese magazine on the visual kei and indie scene (see eBay listing here), and their CD's appear on the lists of many commercial web sites. I'll admit to knowing nothing about the genre, but this is clearly not a local band. - DS1953 05:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please because of what capitalist roadster said Yuckfoo 16:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Leanne 10:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was deleted at 09:44, 30 May 2005 UTC by Charles Matthews (delete as mainly link self-promotion). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Spiders by Namu"

This article consists of self promotion mixed with poorly formatted information about spiders. --Canderson7 01:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Crap. Delete. — Phil Welch 04:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it before he begins. Xcali 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and explain Mr. Namu about self-promotion. Merge any useful info into existing spider articles. Mgm|^(talk) 07:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Badly written too. Second paragraph under "Main Facts" is BJAODN-worthy. Eric119 09:45, 30 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 - merged - SimonP 14:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Amit Kilam

Not notable, vanity.

Merge and non-suck-tify to Indian Ocean (band). — Phil Welch 04:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Indian Ocean (band). Megan1967 09:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. utcursch | talk 13:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (?), then redirect to Quest for Glory III. All this has already been done, I'm just closing here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Awful waffle

Non-notable band, probable vanity. The list of local gigs with ticket prices suggests this band can't be important. 3,000 or so hits on Google for "Awful waffle", but most appear to be for a book or just for it being used as a phrase. Delete. Hedley 01:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, Redirect to Quest for Glory III. It's an enemy (not to mention easter egg) in there. Radiant_* 12:22, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Good call. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:03, 2005 Jun 4 (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, and nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Candy/Molly's Lips

Subpage consisting of the text "Nirvana split single" and a CD cover. Not an article, might just be some undeleted temporary page but nonetheless shouldn't be in the article namespace. Hedley 01:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Now that its not just an album cover on its own, i'll vote keep aswell. Hedley 14:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a limited-edition single with the band Fluid that was released in 1991. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I expanded it to an {{album-stub}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, notable, interesting. Kappa 07:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -notable -CunningLinguist 08:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nateji77 09:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable, and the article shows clear information enough. CrossTimer 11:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- thus lastly I would suggest to remove this article from discussion for Votes for Deletion, as we're agreed that it should be kept.

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CJAY

Self-explanatory. Please delete. freestylefrappe 00:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Spinboy 03:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned it up a little, and I see no reason to delete it. Take a poke through Category:Radio stations or Category:Station stubs and see how many hundreds of stations with little information so far are in Wikipedia (e.g. 102.4 Wish FM, WKTG (FM)). What would make CJAY worthy of deleting? -- JamesTeterenko 06:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real radio station with CRTC certification. If the article isn't satisfactory in its current form: improve, don't delete. CJCurrie 18:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A worthy stub. --YUL89YYZ 19:06, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I fail to see what's self-explanatory about it. Needs expansion but there are many radio and TV station articles in Wikipedia. 23skidoo 02:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with all of the other major radio stations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable enough radio station.Capitalistroadster 03:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
K grudgingly Fawcett5 04:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Real. K1Bond007 04:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems no worse than the other thousand stubs a day we seem to get. Xcali 06:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real radio station -CunningLinguist 08:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please. NSR 10:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a real radio station, tis a stub... but we have lots of them! no need to delete. UkPaolo 16:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- There is no indication from this article that there's anything particularly notable about this station, but there's no harm in keeping it. My thought is that there's no point in writing an article on a cookie-cutter radio station unless it has an interesting history (if it was notable in and of itself in the present, it wouldn't be cookie-cutter), but if the article's written there's a chance someone might look it up. Haikupoet 00:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hopefully, I've added enough to make the station article useful; seems to me a leading station in a mid-size market appraching 30 years of broadcasting is reasonably notable as far as radio stations go. ByeByeBaby 04:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it isn't really so self explanatory after all Yuckfoo 16:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. sufficient explanation given above. --GrantNeufeld 15:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Darkwater

Sixteen Google hits, and not all of them are him. Definite vanity. Denni ☯ 02:19, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

D vanity advertisment. Fawcett5 04:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Phil Welch 04:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few painters become notable in under 5 years. Xcali 06:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. - Etacar11 23:38, 30 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 - merged - SimonP 14:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Purple vs. violet

Rather pointless page, that seems to struggle with the distinction between "colour" and "shade" Alai 02:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also note that nothing links to it. Not notable at all. Ryan Prior 03:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, although I again wonder whether or not this fits the speedy delete "Very short articles with little or no context" criteria. — Phil Welch 04:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Merge with parent articles. — Phil Welch 10:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as nonsense Fawcett5 04:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete, agree with you lot. — JIP | Talk 04:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The rewritten version looks OK. No vote. — JIP | Talk 10:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Xcali 06:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't provide info as author doesn't even know the difference or at least didn't mention it. Speedy delete. Such info is better placed in existing articles anyway. Mgm|^(talk) 07:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and merge with parent articles. Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Article was rewritten. Above delete votes may not refer to the current article. Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look much like a speedy candidate now! Either keepand rename, or merge with the two parent articles. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to purple. (I've already merged the content — Chameleon 16:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Merge/redir to parents. R adiant _* 14:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with parent articles. Scimitar 14:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Zocky 14:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
M with purple. Fawcett5 14:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Purple and redirect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- This is about a very real psychophysical phenomenon. The article is badly written and needs a better title, but so what? Nor does it make sense to merge this with purple or violet -- this is about a general color perception issue, not about a particular color. ----Isaac R 17:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel strongly that this is more closely related to colour perception than to the colour purple, then make the appropriate edits to Colour:Colour perception, but there is no need to keep this as a separate article. — Chameleon 17:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That suggestion has some merit. The only problem is that Color is too big and needs to be broken up. The section you mention would be a good basis for a new article on Color Perception. The material in both Purple vs. violet and Color#Purple versus violet could be merged there. I'd support such a merge. But I can't accept an illogical merge with Purple (why not Violet?), and will not change my vote from Keep as long as that's the most popular merge. ----Isaac R 22:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why to purple, and not to violet? Well, because violet is a purple, for anyone's money. It's not like the results of a "merge" consensus here is binding on article content until time immemorial: for all intents and purposes, voting for "merge" has the effect that the content ought to be kept, but not as a stand-alone article. If it ends up in an article other than the most popular "merge" suggestion, it's not like the VfD police will hunt you down and make you move it back. Placing it in a new article Colour perception would certainly be ideal, but "someone must go forth and write said article" is definitely beyond the competence of the VfD process... Alai 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Purple. I understand there are perceptual issues involved, but I still don't feel this article frames them well. Firstly, the usual terminology as I understand it is indigo and violet, given Newton's insistence on crowbarring both of these into the spectrum for his own nefarious reasons, despite very few being able to readily distinguish two distinct colours with the naked eye. The implied distinction with purple is to confuse matters enormously, as surely most people would agree both _are_ "shades of purple". Secondly, colour perception is a much broader topic than just this one issue, which makes very little sense picked out in isolation. Alai 20:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Erk! Violet is a purple in much the same way that orange is a red. Purple and violet are enormously different and I think that very few people (one, at least, clearly) would ever think of calling the two the same thing. And no, indigo and violet miss out the red part of the range completely and totally ignore purple - the reason for this being you ignoring the "back-loop" of the spectrum that is necessary if you have colour names for admixtures of the colours at the two ends. If the information is to be merged, it should be merged with b0th parents - as I suggested in my original vote. The idea of a colour perception article isn't bad, though 9and given that my MSc was in visual perception, perhaps I should have a go at it...). Grutness...wha? 05:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Violet (color). If the consensus ends up as "keep," I suggest renaming to "Difference between purple and violet" or something similar. "Purple vs. violet" sounds like some sort of little league baseball game. --Xcali 16:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is, as far as I can tell, not verifiable. In my understanding, the idea that "purple" and "violet" have specific, encyclopedic differences is debatable. In many contexts, the words purple and violet are synonymous. This article is unencyclopedic and only becomes worthy if sources are cited that are in themselves notable and widely accepted to be authoritative. If such sources are found and cited, this should be merged. If they are not speedily produced, I vote to delete. Ryan Prior 20:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Will Harvey Schiffman from Rutgers do? Grutness...wha? 01:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment I find it interesting that some people in this debate seem to think that purple and violet are the same and therefore the article is unneccessary, whereas others think it's worth merging this item with purple and/or violet. This debate is therefore a perfect example of what the article is referring to - the confusion as to whether these two quite different hues are or are not the same colour! Grutness...wha? 02:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Shades of Purple: as stated above the confusion is more between indigo and violet, both being shades of purple. --Phil | Talk 15:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Indigo could be seen as a shade of violet, but it is certainly nothing like purple. Read the articles on the colours purple and violet and you will see that they are completely different colours. Read the article on Color circle and you will see that there are good psychophysical reasons why this is so. Read the article on Color theory and you will see that this difference holds true in art as much as it does in science. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually, being colour-blind, I have a sneaking suspicion that when you "normal" people talk about the difference between blue and purple and other allegedly different colours, it's all just a conspiracy to get me to say that I can see something that isn't really there (à la the emperor's new clothes). ;) — Chameleon 13:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought it would go as "Purple vs. Pink is a fictional show in Pure Pwnage Episode 4...", except it's violet instead of pink. Hmm... Grue 11:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"...purple and violet cause confusion for many people." True, but delete, unless we want an article for Red vs. magenta, Burgundy vs. dark red, Colour term only women use vs. green, etc. No Account
Redirect. To Mauve. ~~~~ 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Its interesting, what they did above. they crossed out all the delete votes that applied to the old article, since we're now talking about a re-written one. i think that is a very good idea - most of my good articles that got vfd'd a while back cause they started off as pissy stubs would have got through if i knew that! Well you learn something every day, eh? I certainly did by reading the purple vs violet article, and even if i do say so myself, wikipedia is a place to LEARN. thats half the reason im here. Anyway... i better go and cook some tea, catchas all l8r eh! THE KING 06:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Purple: this is already half done anyway. However, perhaps first neutralise the point of view. I don't buy the line that this is a case of confusion. It a clear case of differing ideas on what the word purple means. I argue that purple includes indigo and violet. What other word in the English language is there to cover colours between blue and red? Can you argue that no such term would be useful? - Jimp 10Jun05

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 RESULT: DELETE 11-0 Noel (talk) 19:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Pact

The whole item is fake and entirely invented.

This article is simply complete nonsense! I strongly recommend to remove it instantly, please. This kind of disinformation is dangerous for all wikiusers, because it confuses them with ´facts´ which are intended to convince the reader of the ´truth´ of this virtual history (or may be intentional propaganda?). Chinese and asian history are severely distorted in this abstruse fabrication. Viet Nam and Mongolia e.g. both of them firm allies or even satellites of the USSR, had not even diplomatic relations with the PR China in the period (1980-85) discussed. The PR China attacked Viet Nam in February 1979 in order to ´punish´ Viet Nam for occupying PR Chinas ally ´khmer rouge´ Cambodia and concluding a military pact with the USSR. After 3 weeks of vicious battles along the sino-vietnamese border approx. 25000 chinese and 15000 vietnamese soldiers were dead; some vietnamese bordertowns razed to the ground and diplomatic relations were only restored in 1991. This item constitutes a provocation for all chinese, vietnamese and korean people. So please remove that crap! 29.5.05 G.R.S

Additionally it is especially bizarre by the author of this fabrication to maintain that PR Mongolia where up to 150000 soviet troops (heavy armour and ballistic missiles included!) were stationed until 1991, did conclude a military pact with USSR archenemy PR China! Quite superfluous to describe the northkorean line of equidistance between PRC and USSR which enabled KIM IL SUNG to exert more influence (and get more material aid from both sides)in this peculiar strategic situation. The DPRK actually had bilateral military pacts with both PRC and USSR. Wikipedia is no place for virtual provocation, please remove this article soon! 29.05.05 G.R.S

Another example for the authors total ignorance of facts is his statement that Angola got into this ´pact´ 1982. During this time there raged a bitter civil war between the MPLA government faction (in Luanda) allied with the USSR (also with Cuba which sent up to 40000 troops) and the UNITA under warlord JONAS SAVIMBI propped up by the USA, South Africa (Apartheidgovernment), Israel and PR China. Actually PR China was the biggest armssupplier of the UNITA second only to the USA. After 25 years of fighting approx. 1.5 million people were killed in this gruesome war. No further comment needed about the pure idiocy of argumentation in this provocative fake item. I suggest that this insulting piece of anti-chinese propaganda should be removed after this deletion procedure. 30.05.05 G.R.S G.R.S 30.05.05

The in the item mentioned ´Vientiane Treaty´ seems to have existed between 1985-89 but got invalid after the vietnamese military disengagement (1989 Cambodia, 1991 Laos). Some sources say that this tripartite agreement was only a propaganda coup to legitimize vietnamese domination in indochina and had no real effect on regional security. A bilateral military pact between Laos and Viet Nam concluded in 1977 still exists but ´only´ vietnamese military and intelligence ´instructors´ are present in the country today. The vietnamese satellite government of Cambodia lead by khmer rouge dissident HUN SEN initially had a similar pact with Viet Nam but after Hanoi´s retreat in the fall 1989 and the subsequent reduction of vietnamese influence Phnom Penh dissolved it. At present HUN SEN and his CPP still control Cambodia in collaboration with the royalist FUNCINPEC of Prince NORODOM RANARRIDH (ever loyal to China!) but he has changed his overlord to the rising superpower PR China. Also in Laos chinese influence is on the rise but the old pathet lao guard still on duty in Vientiane know that they came only to power by vietnamese bajonets and do not want to break with Hanoi for the time being. However it only a question of time when Laos and inevitably also Viet Nam enter orbit around the new (or very old!) asian hegemon.In the next few years eventually even the US will learn that fighting against gravitation is simply a fools game. G.R.S 31.05.05

VFD nominated by 82.83.237.159 (talk · contributions)

Comment. As Aris Katsaris noted at the top of this article's talk page, there are no external references cited, and there are no relevant Google hits -- except for Wikipedia's mirror sites. ~~I'd like someone to help me find offline references to verify this article's content before I vote here.~~ Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like there is nothing to verify this. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute fiction. — Phil Welch 04:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for identifying this for us. Delete. Everyking 05:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mark ¹ 05:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - attempt of secret history or conspiracy theory. Possibly a plot of some political thriller. Don't forget the purge the other articles linking to this page as well - Skysmith 08:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that's important, go VfD the individual articles yourself. But you'll have to write serious nominations, not just assert that the author's a bozo. ----Isaac R 17:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to the fact that the original writer had linked this from other articles. It seems they have been purged already - Skysmith 09:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable conspiracy theory. Megan1967 09:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody comes up with some actual documentation for this "Pact". (Not holding my breath.) But the nominator's concerns about "disinformation" don't justify summary removal of this article -- everybody deserves a chance to defend their material, no matter how ridiculous it is. ---Isaac R 17:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page history and redirect to Warsaw Pact. Martg76 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. - Etacar11 23:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no verification of facts
Delete Until the late 80s even the mail between China and Vietnam was routed via Singapore. preetam rai

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TheWolfWeb

Obvious prank by some college kids on a messageboard 24.211.174.208 04:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a "prank", but it doesn't appear to be encyclopedic either. Delete for now. K1Bond007 05:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Xcali 06:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A webforum forum, unless large, is not notable; a webforum with a history of its pranks being broadcast on television, hacking the police, and whose page gives information on these events, is. Almafeta 03:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, encyclopedic. freestylefrappe 20:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete forum vanity. JamesBurns 08:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Charles Jurney"

Apparent vanity/advertisement, limited notability. You decide. Fawcett5 04:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Affrodyetee 01:30, 30 May 2005 (EST)
- Affrodyetee's only edit is this one, FYI. K1Bond007 05:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, appears to lack notability. K1Bond007 05:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 05:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy vanity/ad --Xcali 06:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. Plus there's the quotes... - Etacar11 23:55, 30 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 Redirect to human pony.

Note: although this was already done by 219.111.147.78 out of process on 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 and 12:46, 8 Jun 2005 , I am letting this redirect stand. Let this be an official notice that I, as a vote closer, am taking responsibility for this particular action on June 8. --Death phoenix 19:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shoulder riding

Not notable or encyclopedic — Phil Welch 05:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef at best. --Xcali 06:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable activity. Didn't know there was a fetish associated. Kappa 07:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much found on Google, seems like a hoax, notability in question -CunningLinguist 08:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 09:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is pretty pointless as it is, and I don't see there being much potential to expand the article. Oracleoftruth 10:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, An encyclopaedia should be complete. Not just what you learn at school. Did you know that people like Aristotle enjoyed this? IT has historical background and in some cultures esp. in Haiti and Africa it is also used as a transport medium. Please note that just by lack of knowledge, do not go and delete it. See this page. It has proof of Aristotle has enjoyed this acrivity. --218.41.113.26 08:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I will consider changing my vote if the article provides proof that Plato enjoyed this activity. Gamaliel 22:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we get the Plato proof, as per Gamaliel. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... and I always though shoulder riding was what the motorcycle riders on the shoulder of the pavement did while laughing at the people in cars who were stuck in a traffic jam ... - DS1953 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps Kappa or 218.41.113.26 could add material to the article to demonstrate the topic's notability. --Dcfleck 12:28, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Merge/redir to shoulder. R adiant _* 13:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - shoulder riding is also bicycling along the shoulder. --SPUI (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ➥the Epopt 16:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable claims. JamesBurns 08:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, could be expanded. Grue 11:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment Google Aristotle pony-play to beleive me. Also the name of the woman who rode Aristotle was - Phillis. Google Aristotle and Phillis and see. Please help vote Keep to make this fabulous article and fetish in pubic eye and Wikipedia more complete--218.41.113.26 15:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, it's not Wikipedia's job to keep "this fabulous article and fetish in pubic eye" [sic]. Secondly, your references have nothing to do with "shoulder riding". They describes a different practice, which already has an entry on Wikipedia (Human pony). --Dcfleck 02:29, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete not a dictionary Mozzerati 19:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Redirect to Human pony (no content worth merging). --Dcfleck 03:12, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Redirect to human pony as of Dcfleck --219.111.147.78 12:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep, and turn into article on the real treaty. Noel (talk) 20:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vientiane treaty

~~Delete.~~No objection to keeping the (sub?)stub. Hoax article, corollary of Eastern Pact. (There was a Vientiane treaty of 1973, but this wasn't it). Mark ¹ 05:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't speak English, but I believe you. --Asova 05:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User's second edit. All edits have been trolling. Rick K 06:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I would vote to keep an article about the Vientiane Treaty of 1973 but not this article. I would like to rewrite this myself if I had the opportunity. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to correctly capitalized entry, keep. — Phil Welch 09:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I stubified the content and moved it to Vientiane Treaty. Vientiane treaty is currently set to be a redirect as long as the VfD expires. — Phil Welch 09:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you want to keep a hoax article? RickK 09:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - I deleted the hoax content because, as according to the original VfD listing you can plainly see above, "There was a Vientiane treaty of 1973, but this wasn't it". I stubified the content so it only has that information and moved it accordingly. — Phil Welch 09:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, okay, sorry. Rick K 19:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
The article History of Laos mentions a "Vientiane cease-fire agreement in 1973". I googled with the words Vientiane "cease-fire agreement" and found some more information. In this address Victor N. Xiong writes about the "cease-fire agreement between the two Lao factions ... signed ... in Vientiane on February 21, 1973." (It goes on.) It seems that this treaty wasn't very meaningful. This could be a section on the History of Laos page. That way it could still be linked to if ever needed. Redirect. Wipe 14:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. From my reading, this was a fairly significant treaty. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 30 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle 11:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatization

Nonsense. --W(t) 06:04, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Keep. I think it's a beautiful article. --Asova 06:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User's fourth edit. All edits have been trolling. Rick K 06:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dictdef and no hope of being anything more. --Barfooz (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted- that was patent nonsense, not even a dictdef. Speedied. Mark ¹ 06:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(note, I've made it a redirect to Drama, that seemed appropriate) R adiant _* 09:09, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kim wong-shing

Likely vanity. Typical vanity miscapitalization. Neither Google nor Amazon give hits for any variation I tried of the name. Xcali 06:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to verify this as well with a google search for "Wong-Shing"+guyana [3]. If this is real, then that will give us results. The lack of results indicates that this is either fully unnoteworthy or a hoax. Furthermore, I don't pretend to be an expert on names, but Kim Wong Shing sounds Korean, and I've never heard an African name that sounds like that. -- Barfooz (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is complete nonsense. freestylefrappe 23:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While I agree that this is most likely a fake, I just want to respond to Barfooz's comment. Kim Wong-Shing, or, rather, the surname Wong-Shing is Chinese, definitely not Korean. And it is entirely possible that there are Chinese people living in Guyana. Also, Guyana is a french-speaking country in South America, not Africa. I just wanted to clear that up. But otherwise, I think there is a possibility that there is a novelist by this name in Guyana, but unless a more valid source is found I say delete.
Keep. Last year i wrote a term paper on South American (note: south american, not african) authors and Kim Wong-Shing was one of them. So I think that all of you are depending on Google etc. much too much. Also the name Wong-Shing is Chinese not Korean. Kim Wong-Shing is certainly not very well known, but if I could go find the book where I found information on her, I would post it. This isn't the most well written paragraph on her, but at least someone out there was trying.

(comment by 205.188.117.12)

Please cite your sources so we can check them. Mgm|^(talk) 07:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, there are Chinese individuals living in Guyana however the person in question is not notable and certainly the claims appear to be fictious. Megan1967 09:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent vanity. — Phil Welch 09:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently, there are no credible third party references to verify this. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. - Etacar11 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I swear that I've seen this name before, when I was researching foreign authors. I'm looking for it right now, where I saw her listed. On the other hand, I don't think shes exactly famous, this entry seems overly flattering, so I don't think its worth the entry.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rumer Willis

Not notable in her own right. Rick K 06:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Chances are she'll become notable in due course, but not yet. Weak delete. --W(t) 06:24, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Delete I agree. Xcali 06:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's been in a bunch of movies already. She was the daughter in Hostage, for example. Adam Bishop 06:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Excerpt from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that topical treatments can be rather large, can include any relevant links, and can be more timely, etc. It also means that the style and length of writing appropriate for paper is not necessarily a limitation here." - it can be a little timely - and I think it should be our goal to have a little bit of information on everything - weather it be a true entry or just a stub. Even if just one person one time is reading something and wonders "Who's Rumer Willis?" and visits the Rumer Willis page would justify having it in my mind. --Imaek 07:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yawn. The old "Let's put in an article on every person who ever existed and ever will exist" argument. Still doesn't fly. Rick K 07:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because of the appearance in Hostage and because people would want to look her up. Kappa 07:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apart from her role in Hostage, IMDB also reports she had an uncredited role in The Whole Nine Yards and named roles in "Striptease" and "Now and Then". I've seen actors kept with less impressive credits. Mgm|^(talk) 07:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Really? Can you name one? RickK 07:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - How about that one that appeared in a couple of no budget indie films and keeps coming up on VfD? At least this kid appeared in films that people watched... Average Earthman 20:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, fancruft. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, concur with MGM. Megan1967 09:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete; merge the little info into both her parent's pages. Dunc|☺ 09:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't delete and merge because of the GFDL. You might want to merge and redirect instead. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - No I want to delete it and the information merged with both of her parent's pages, like I said. Dunc|☺ 19:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. — Phil Welch 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep child of famous parents with film appearances to her name. Capitalistroadster 23:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That argument still flies very well. Almafeta 03:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know if an imdb entry with minor film roles by itself, or being the child of extremely famous celebrities by itself, is enough. But the two together, certainly. Postdlf 17:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I've met her, she's a pretty cool girl, and she's working her way through Hollywood, and even though it certainly helps to have her genes, she deserves her own entry... may not be much, but it's worth keeping. FutureNJGov 18:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please because she is notable Yuckfoo 16:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep some notability. JamesBurns 08:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jade Jagger

Not notable in her own right. Rick K 06:25, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, 68,600 google hits. [4] Kappa 07:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and expand. 68,000 hits makes this entry notable to me. Megan1967 09:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. may not be deserve to be notable, but is. Nateji77 09:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dunc|☺ 09:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Nateji77. — Chameleon 10:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable - she shouldnt be, but sadly she is. no reason to get rid of. UkPaolo 16:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in fashion named by Time Magazine as one of the 25 most influential people in fashion in 2002.[5] Capitalistroadster 00:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Capitalistroadster's research, if nothing else. Postdlf 17:12, 31 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 merge with List of minor Star Wars characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noa Briqualon

Minor Star Wars character that appeared in only one movie. Only 43 Google hits, see [6]. JamesBurns 06:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Take a stand against fancruft. And not just because he's an Ewok. :) --Barfooz (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He isn't an Ewok, if he was played by Wilford Brimley :), but I have to wonder where all of this detail comes from. Merge into Minor Star Wars characters or something similar. Rick K 06:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into one of the various star wars minor character articles -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no particular need to merge. Kappa 07:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in only one of the movies, shouldn't make any character minor per se, but the lack of Google hits on a Star Wars character suggest, the nominator is right about this one. Merge into the List of minor Star Wars characters or transwiki to the Star Wars Wiki. Make sure there's sources too. Mgm|^(talk) 07:27, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. — Phil Welch 09:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information isn't bad, but this really doesn't deserve its own page. Oracleoftruth 10:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think this is 500% more interesting and important to most people than a random county in Kansas gren 10:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at least people live in counties in Kansas (not that I like our myriad US geo-stubs). This does not deserve a separate article.
Merge. Minor character as per WP:FICT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, minor character from the Ewoks TV movie, not one of the films. We don't have separate articles for the minor characters from The Simpsons, so why anyone would think this warrants a separate character I don't know. Average Earthman 20:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge freestylefrappe 20:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to Apple Computer. --Death phoenix 19:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jobs and Wozniak

I should hope people are able to cope with only looking up one entry at a time. --W(t) 06:31, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Computer. Rick K 06:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Apple Computer. Gazpacho 07:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this substub is about the people, not the company. Therefore, I don't think a redirect to Apple computer is correct. I'd rather redirect to both the people, but that's impossible. Mgm|^(talk) 07:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect as per MGM. — Phil Welch 09:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Computer. I would rather have a redirect than somebody try to recreate this article again after it's deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect doesn't prevent anybody from recreating the article. It's just another page that happens to say #REDIRECT, and can be edited into anything you want.----Isaac R 18:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect! This article is pointless, so would a redirect be. People can look up either person independently. UkPaolo 16:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see lots of votes for "Redirect" but not a single justification for same. ----Isaac R 17:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, since there is an obvious relation between the founders and their company. In other words, the reason is implicit. --Sn0wflake 23:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unlikely anyone would search for this term as opposed to either individual alone. Denni ☯ 01:28, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Redirect per RickK. --Un focused 04:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Denni. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. James F. (talk) 09:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete no redirect, nothing added by this title and nobody is likely to be searching for it. Links to Apple computer from both Jobs and Wozniak articles will be sufficient.Mozzerati 20:44, 2005 Jun 4 (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 unanimous keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Www.chowk.com

Not sure why this was tagged for speedy deletion. I think keep because I know Tariq Ali is notable and if he writes for a website the site is probably notable too. Kappa 07:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some cleanup on it because I wasn't sure how notable it was, did an Alexa ranking lookup and it was something like 47,000 (I don't remember exactly), but seems worth keeping with that low/high a ranking. Rick K 08:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Charles Matthews 09:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... no grounds to remove! UkPaolo 16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its been around for a while, and during several Indo-Pak crises was notable for the level of debate. Hornplease 06:21, 31 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 merge and redirect. (All the anonymous and unsigned votes were discounted.) Rossami (talk) 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Q (video game character)

Minor character from the Street Fighter video game. Hardly anything is known about Q, even his/her sex. JamesBurns 07:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even if little is known about Q people will still want to look him/her up. Could be merged somewhere. Kappa 07:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if the sentence "little is known about Q" is removed along with the fan speculation. We only need the facts. If it's got authorative sources, I might go along with the speculation too as long as it's put in a section named as such. Mgm|^(talk) 07:32, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Street Fighter III, per WP:FICT. He doesn't appear outside of that game, and certainly doesn't transcend it. A Man In Black 08:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per MIB. — Phil Welch 09:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, no need to merge... it might not be a particularly notable character, but the page has the potential to be expanded and someone, somewhere may eventually want to read this article.... UkPaolo 16:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The usual fancruft. Delete or merge. Martg76 21:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, might be expanded into a short article in the future. --Sn0wflake 23:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Video game character. Klonimus 07:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge; unimportant outside of one videogame, and apparently not particularly central to that context either CDC (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge and redirect to Street Fighter III, per WP:FICT. If "hardly anything is known about Q", then there is no potential for encyclopedic expansion, and no reason to keep a separate article. Barely worthy of merging even for SF3 fans; almost a delete case. Barno 20:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect What's there is not an article and it may never be. If it outgrows Street Fighter III it can be an article on its own. Vegaswikian 02:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to 'list of minor characters' article, or make one if it doesn't exist. Merge and redirect. Deus Ex 00:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete minor character not inherently notable, games cruft. Megan1967 03:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete minor video game character. Very little potential for expansion. Leanne 10:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep There might not much info, but the article should stay.
Keep Q deserves to have an article.
Merge and redirect either as per A Man In Black or Deus Ex. I don't much care which; they're both good ideas. The list of minor characters might simply be made part of the Street Fighter III article. —chris.lawson (talk) 05:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think the article should stay.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a copyvio. Now there is a redirect to Alma mater. All the decisions have been made beforehand, so I'm just closing the debate here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

School song

No article content, save for lyrics for someone's school song. Might even be a copyvio? --W(t) 07:05, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Speedy delete. -Sholtar | talk 07:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a copyvio. RickK 07:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Note - now redirected to Alma mater. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:07, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yashai Warcraft

No evidence of notability. Probably a copyvio too, but I can't find it. --W(t) 07:13, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation. To satisfy any concerns, you may contact the Yashai via www.blayshalla.com 68.122.80.73

Delete, not notable, ~~games cruft~~. Megan1967 09:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not Wikipedia material. Keep and rewrite. --Sn0wflake 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"not Wikipedia material" provides no information. By definition, an encyclopedia is a "comprehensive reference work" on a variety of subjects. Unless the encyclopedia is geared toward a handful of specific subjects/topics the article should not be deleted. 68.122.80.73

If this article is deleted, then other similar articles should also be discontinued/deleted: Karate, Kung Fu, Escrima, Jeet Kune Do, etc.
Those are notable, even outside of the martial arts community. People are arguing that this isn't notable or verifiable. (No vote.) A Man In Black 05:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. However the founder, Blaise Loong, is a well recognized figure within the martial arts community. He has been on the cover of Full Contact and Filipino Martial Arts magazines, and has written several articles for Black Belt. I'm sure the author of the piece would be willing to re-write the article if you provide the specific problems with the current article.
Comment made by 68.122.80.73 (talk · contributions)
Keep. Can't say it's definitely copyvio; if it is, the offending material could be edited out. It is a minor fighting system, but as far as I can tell is sufficiently notable to be included. DDerby 08:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are some notable sites and magazines within the martial arts community that know Blaise Loong and of his system: http://www.fmadigest.com/Advertisement/systems.html (scroll down to the bottom of the webpage).

http://bahalana.com/Eskrima%20Links.htm (Bahalana is a world famous Filipino martial arts academy. On their links page is a link to Blaise Loong's website, among other well recognized martial systems). http://blayshalla.com/Blaise/MainFrame/MainFrame.htm (This page shows a few samples of articles that Blaise has even written for various well established martial arts magazines). http://www.planetyahyah.com/chronicles/karate/bio/se_sm.htm (Here's a bio on a well known karate expert. He lists Blaise and Yashai Warcraft among his current instructors).

Perhaps it seems notability is lacking because the voters are not involved in martial arts or in the martial community? Just my opinion because he is well known among fighters in the community, including UFC and Pride competitors. And anyone serious in the martial arts will definitely come across his name over and over again.

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 Married... with Children. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Bundy

Substub that just repeats information in the Married... with Children article. I love the show, but if Al Bundy is just a redirect to the original article, this page should be too. ral 315 07:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect (you needn't have VfDed it for that). --W(t) 07:25, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
This article was redirected, and The Inedible Bulk reverted. These fictional characters don't stand on their own. Redirect again. Uncle G 15:23, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and bundify that puppy. :) — RJH 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:51, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect to Married... with Children. There's more and better info there already. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:28, 31 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 Redirect to Married... with Children. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marcy Rhoades D'Arcy

Substub that just repeats information in the Married... with Children article. I love the show, but if Al Bundy is just a redirect to the original article, this page should be too. ral 315 07:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect (you needn't have VfDed it for that). --W(t) 07:26, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
This article was redirected, and The Inedible Bulk reverted. These fictional characters don't stand on their own. Redirect again. Uncle G 15:23, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:52, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect to Married... with Children. There's more and better info there already. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:27, 31 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 Redirect to Married... with Children. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson D'Arcy

Substub that just repeats information in the Married... with Children article. I love the show, but if Al Bundy is just a redirect to the original article, this page should be too. ral 315 07:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect (you needn't have VfDed it for that). --W(t) 07:25, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
This article was redirected, and The Inedible Bulk reverted. These fictional characters don't stand on their own. Redirect again. Uncle G 15:24, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:52, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect to Married... with Children. There's more and better info there already. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:28, 31 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 - kept - SimonP 02:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Attitude change

Dictdef. --W(t) 07:23, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like a bit more than a dictdef and certainly has potential for expanding to an encyclopedic article. Sjakkalle 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef, plus the meaning of the phrase is no more than the meaning of "attitude" and "change" composed. Quale 16:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a dictdef but could be expanded. UkPaolo 16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than a dicdef. --Sn0wflake 23:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef Denni ☯ 01:29, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Merge/redir to attitude. R adiant _* 13:14, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Some potential. JamesBurns 09:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to have a potential for becoming encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Please explain how this can be turned into an encyclopedic article. I'm curious. Mandel 23:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

A lot could be added. Regarding the presence of this as a common plot twist in literature and movies, regarding the possible psychological origins of this change, regarding how this affects day-to-day life... there is quite a bit to be added to this article, still. --Sn0wflake 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 02:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lunia and Mercuria

RPG trivia spawned from Mt. Celestia. I have doubts about that article too, but I won't nominate it. Gazpacho 07:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yikes. I should make a Outer Planes (Dungeons and Dragons) article sometime, though. A Man In Black 08:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mt. Celestia. I think Lunia is an "official" D&D place or plane. Sjakkalle 09:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and Gazpacho, remember to make a redirect from the VfD tag on Lunia to this page. You forgot to do so. Sjakkalle 09:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, they're both layers of an outer plane in the core D&D 3e cosmology. A Man In Black 09:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they're in the official D&D cosmology I see absolutely no reason to delete this when we keep or merge nearly all other fictional places or characters. (Yeah yeah, I'm a "keep all fancruft" user.) Sjakkalle 11:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if they are official D&D cosomology as A Man In Black says. Kappa 20:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they're non-notable parts of official D&D cosmology. They might merit a single line each in a hypothetical Outer Planes (Dungeons and Dragons) article. A Man In Black 03:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Sn0wflake 23:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mt. Celestia. -Sean Curtin 03:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to the proposed Outer Planes (Dungeons and Dragons) or to Mt. Celestia, which in my opinion should be merged into such a higher-level article. Googling either "Lunia" or "Mercuria" gives many unrelated results such as Modigliani's Portrait of Lunia. The D&D usages aren't among the high-ranked listings for either name, making me consider them not encyclopedically notable even if they weren't just gamecruft. Barno 20:15, 31 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 - redirected - SimonP 02:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cloud N. Candy

Minor game character in Yoshi's Story. Only 88 Google hits [7]. JamesBurns 07:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yoshi's Story. A Man In Black 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the game. --Chill Pill Bill 23:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, games cruft. Megan1967 03:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Leanne 10:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 02:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Loughran

Guitarist with questionable notability. 306 Google hits [8] but some of these refer to a New England DJ, a hockey manager, and a news editor. "Matt Loughran" + Guitar gets only 24 Google hits, see [9]. Was going to suggest merging with Cold but would like other editors opinions first. JamesBurns 07:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cold -CunningLinguist 09:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on his own. Megan1967 03:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Aventura Mall

I was going to place a copyvio notice on this article, compare [10] with the article, however Vegaswikian to his credit has been doing some editing around the edges removing some of the phone numbers. A question over whether this shopping mall is inherently notable. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. JamesBurns 08:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article but remove the current content and replace it with a blurb about the general features of the mall and any notable aspects to it. -CunningLinguist 09:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a major mall. Kappa 09:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a major mall.--AAAAA 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AMERICANA CAFE PHONE: (305) 933-8373 1401- Upper Level ASIA CHAO PHONE: (305) 466-3820 1437 - Upper Level CAJUN & GRILL PHONE: (305)682-1333 1377 - Upper Level CHE PASTA PHONE: (305) 932-2652 1373 - WP:NOT a directory, so delete. R adiant _* 14:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like the phone number, why dont YOU take them out instead of DESTROYING the whole article?--AAAAA 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're in no position to attack Radiant. Copying and pasting from the h2limousine website reflects badly on you, not Radiant, as an editor. JamesBurns 08:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. This is the most important mall in the Miami area and maybe also in Florida.--AAAAA 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a big mall, but it doesn't seem exceptional in any way. If I'm wrong and some form of notability can be established, I'll happily change my vote, but until then, delete. Scimitar 14:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if the huge list of shops in this mall (with their location) is removed. We're not a map. Otherwise, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - the article should remain, allbeit that it needs re-writing. Agreed that much of the current content is out of place on Wikipedia, but an article with this name should remain. UkPaolo 16:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article - the mall is freakin' huge, always packed, and is really the centerpiece of the whole city - but get rid of advert-like store listings, which would require ridiculous upkeep anyway, as tenants are always moving in or out. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:46, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Keep as notable mall and cleanup by removing the store listing. We're not the information desk. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mike H 00:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Malls are not generally notable. The list of tenants is a stupendously bad idea, too. Quale 00:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Liberally condense and Merge into Aventura, Florida. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Large public object. Like the Natick Mall. Klonimus 07:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge to Aventura, Florida pending evidence of more notability than bigness (for which "biggest in a nation" is my minimum criterion for inclusion without further significance), in agreement with Scimitar. Ted Kennedy is a large public object, but that's not why he has a WP article. Barno 20:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONLY if store listings are removed. otherwise delete. carmeld1 01:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and Merge without store list to Aventura, Florida. If all it takes to be an article is to list all stores in a mall, then we can list every mall. Please note that even the owner of this mall does not have an article! Vegaswikian 02:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete a meandering list taken from a directory - not encyclopaedic, notability not established. Megan1967 03:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete a mall that isnt all that notable. Leanne 10:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

9 O'clock gun

Article does not establish notability. Rick K 08:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, historic, presumably loud enough for people to want to know what it is. Kappa 09:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Kappa said, its historic and super notable if its a civic institution. -CunningLinguist 09:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vancouver, and fix capitalization. R adiant _* 12:24, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Radiant. Scimitar 14:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Radiant. Vancouver surely isn't the only city that uses loud noises as a time signal. Time signal currently redirects to radio clock. Might be an idea to try and find more examples of similar practices. Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Edinburgh comes to mind. Anyway well done on the edits. R adiant _* 13:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I have taken the text from this article, added details about similar signals, and restored a bit of information about shortwave time services &c to time signal, which is no longer a redirect. Suggest redirecting to that article. Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Time signal, now that Smerdis has put a good article there. The general concept is notable; I'm not yet convinced that the name "nine o'clock gun" (under any spelling and capitalization) is the most appropriate for Vancouver's example. As in the previous VfD item, Ted Kennedy is loud, but that's not why he has a WP article either. Barno 20:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vancouver, British Columbia. Vegaswikian 02:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Vancouver, British Columbia. JamesBurns 09:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge As as someone who lives in Vancouver, I know this is at least sugnificant enough to others who live in Vancouver. I sure learned something new from the current page. I believe that this could be considered a stub. If one was to mearge it, it should be merged with Stanley Park, not Vancouver. -Zhatt 10 June 2005
Merge with Vancouver, British Columbia.--Herrhav0k 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A merge to Vancouver would be silly. That is a huge article and has little room for such trivia. - SimonP 02:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rotazn

Lame neologism that sounds like it's only in use by some gaming clan. Isomorphic 08:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crap. — Phil Welch 09:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable gaming clan. Megan1967 09:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, Josh Lee's argument never rebutted. - SimonP 02:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Quantum sort

Looks like a WP:BJAODN candidate to me. Article creator has not provided references despite having been asked to, and I can't verify it. If I should be mistaken: sorry folks. Delete. Lupo 08:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, original research. Rl 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid (also, it's not quantum mechanics but the many worlds theory they're referring to). Redirecting to Quantum algorithm is a good idea though, as there are some interesting quantum computing sorting algorithms. --W(t) 09:13, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Delete. — Phil Welch 09:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were asking for references, I thought you were just saying, "hey that's funny". It's kind of a nerdish injoke, just like Pi day, Administratium etc. Some people swear by 'order of magnitude' as the only comparison of sort algorithms, and this (and quicksort) are counterexamples. R adiant _* 12:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, I'd say. One of those "great in theory, lousy in practice" procedures. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or move to a Humor Category): Qualified under "Patent nonsense (total gibberish)" as well as "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic", as well as reasons listed above. Clever, humorous, but not realistic.
BJAODN. JamesBurns 09:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep in this universe. The Jargon File is your reference. —Josh Lee 04:46, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that the Jargon File cites it is sufficient to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia, although the article itself may need some cleanup. ArthurDenture 04:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - it's non-nonsense and an interesting concept. It's something I'm glad I found, even if it's impractical. I think the article should be changed so that it states much more clearly its theoretical. —EatMyShortz 13:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Chobits media information

This seems to just be a listing of ISBNs and products; seems more like Amazon.com's thing at best, instead of being encyclopedic. Delete. A Man In Black 09:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep I think this has a place integrated into an article of another name.... gren 09:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
1. There is no mention of Amazon.com or any direct links to it.
2. This article contains information such as opening and ending theme songs, episode titles that are usually included in the main article for an anime article. According to the history page, it has existed since Jul 2003, so I supposed people here have agreed that it would be better to spin off this portion into a separate article, just like Chobits characters exist on a separate page.
3. It is not uncommon to mention the publishers of books. If the ISBNs offend you, and you decide to remove the ISBN identification from the article, that would make the article less convenient as a source of reference. However the article is more than ISBN, and the article is not about Amazon.com.
—69.214.227.145 09:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the sort of thing I'd be bold and delete if it were part of the Chobits article; it's raw source material, not encyclopedic information. And who said it was advertising Amazon? I was just saying that this sort of information isn't part of Wikipedia's purview; Amazon was just an example of a site that would have this kind of info. A Man In Black 09:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. While it is an interesting idea — if Wikipedia did not contain mention of works with non-expired copyright — that is certainly not the case for Wikipedia. It is extremely common for anime/manga articles, save stubs, to include titles listings of chapters/episodes and/or OP/ED theme songs (e.g. Naruto (manga), Bleach (manga), Mai-HiME articles... pretty much any other with enough length). If the ISBN numbers are offensive, you can remove it but you're just making the article less informative. —69.214.227.145 10:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Not offensive; this is just raw source material instead of being encyclopedic comment, and seems to be more Wikibooks' thing than Wikipedia's. Looks like the consensus is going against me on this, but at least now I know. A Man In Black 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep; but rename, and perhaps demerge the episode list from the book list. Dunc|☺ 11:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup may be needed. This article is similar to Monty Python mediagraphy, List of Star Trek novels, List of Star Wars comic books, and other articles in which we list all of their books, CD's, TV shows, films, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - DS1953 22:54, 30 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hugh McIlvenna

Cannot verify. Created by User:Brianreddy. After many hoaxes from Trinity College, Dublin, I am very suspicious. Even it should be true, I question the notability. Delete. Lupo 09:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable - one Google hit not related. Megan1967 09:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed--Sophitus 10:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - candidate for Speedy. Yet another bogus article from the Reddy Troll. See Talk:Brian_Reddy for more info. - Pete C ^✍ 17:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'appearence'. On a TV station that DIDN'T EXIST FOR ANOTHER SEVENTEEN YEARS. And didn't even have that name for a while afterwards. Total hoax, as is basically everything thats been uploaded from Trinity lately. I'm considering bringing an RfC on the entire net block, requesting a block, as its not contributed anything of worth. --Kiand 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Irish, and would have heard of this guy if he existed)

Hugh was first brought to my attension about five years ago when I started college in NUI galway.He is a hero in the eyes of a minority of people in the west of Ireland.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New capital city of Gujarat

The author is spreading his vanity pages all over the place. This seems to be a copyvio from somewhere, but I don't know where. He's signed this one in two places. It might be a decent article, but we shouldn't keep if it's a copyvio. Besides, the name is nonsense and the format is unencyclopedic. Rick K 09:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. — Phil Welch 09:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, seems like a copyvio to me UkPaolo 16:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, almost certainly copyvio. Hornplease 06:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

addendum - the information is accurate, and some if it could be included in Ahmedabad.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged - SimonP 02:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

2008 Republican presidential nomination

This was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Xcali with the reason "WP is not a crystal ball". That is not really a reason to speedy delete, and besides I think that a redirect to U.S. presidential election, 2008 is a better alternative if nobody wants to expand this (in which case I would say keep). Sjakkalle 09:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. — Phil Welch 09:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - same info as in 2008 presidential election--Sophitus 10:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to U.S. presidential election, 2008. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball..Revolución 17:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted above. 23skidoo 20:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - unless you have some reason to know that the scheduled 2008 Republican presidential nomination will not happen as planned. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:42, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Redirect per what others have said -CunningLinguist 06:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have done some expansion to the article, similar to but not identical with the 2008 election page. I believe that time should be allowed to see if more expansion will come, especially as the 2008 primaries arrive. User: Dave & Ted
Merge Vegaswikian 02:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to U.S. presidential election, 2008. JamesBurns 09:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge, into 2008 Republican National Convention. The topic isn't an event so it doesn't need to be kept. Falphin 21:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. A message saying that this user is blocked has replaced the original. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:STUDENTS' ACADEMY INTERNATIONAL

User is using his/her User page for advertising. Rick K 09:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertising. Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. Megan1967 10:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertisement on Wikipedia is forbidden by policy
Delete. Tolerance of what goes on userpages doesn't extend to advertising. Sjakkalle 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. UkPaolo 16:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Nigerian?) spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad -CunningLinguist 06:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just speedied this. It's blatant misuse of a user page. I also blocked the username because it has obviously been selected for unsuitable purposes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Manene

Not to step on the toes of Wikipedia:Poképrosal, but in addition to being a stub about an obscure Pokemon, this is a speculative stub about a future obscure Pokemon. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and whatnot. A Man In Black 10:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete it, since it's either cruft or prophecy. Scimitar 14:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gives all the known facts. No speculation. If people want to know about the new pokémon then they can get the facts here. After all, it fits in with the current pokédex. There is no reason to delete it. Sonic Mew 20:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if people want to get speculation, the internet is turgid with Pokemon fansites. This page has a scanned picture of the Pokemon, a name that might be changed before the Pokemon is mentioned in the US, and some speculation about Mr. Mime. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there's no info here yet. When there is, this VfD hardly prevents a new article with some actual content and the correct English-language name from being made. A Man In Black 04:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quote: "No speculation" This is the facts. It appears in a movie released in a month, and is a template for when the games are released. (XD in August and Diamond/Pearl in November.) So we may as well keep it. I have addded a little bit of information to it for now. Sonic Mew 06:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    - "Manene is the (unconfirmed) pre-evolution of Mr. Mime" is speculation. The rest is factual but marginal; it isn't known even known that Manene will be the English-language name, nor is it necessarily known that it will be in Pokemon XD or make any more than a cameo appearance in the next movie. (By the time Pearl/Diamond comes out, the Pokeprosal may have changed the way individual Pokemon articles are written, anyway.) Wikipedia still isn't a crystal ball, and, as there is practically zero info now (Here's a picture of a Pokemon, its name is this, Pokemon fans are speculating about it) and likely little information of value in for months if ever (I seriously doubt Manene is going to be the next Pikachu), I stand by my earlier assertions. A Man In Black 07:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It won't be the next Pikachu, but with that statement, you are stepping on Wikipedia:Poképrosal. There is no mention of Pokémon XD, (I did put it in first, but removed it myself in cleaning up my addition on the grounds of crystal ball.) It will be in the next movie, though. Coro Coro magazine has confirmed it. Sonic Mew 13:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. When it makes it into the series or the games there will be more information avaliable for fans to complete the article, no? So let's just leave it be for now. --Sn0wflake 23:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep it. Joizashmo 00:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. NeoJustin 03:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All pokemon. Klonimus 07:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Even unreleased ones? I'd be right with you if even, say, Murkrow or Forretress were on VfD, since the Pokeprosal is going to deal with all of those rather than piecemealing things on VfD. This isn't a notability challenge, though; it's a Wikipedia is not a crystal ball challenge. A Man In Black 07:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - From my experience, notability takes priority over crystal ball. I mentioned the next-gen consoles above, and they are definately notable enough to stay. But one could argue that they are still crystal ball topics. Since crystal ball is the only reason to delete Manene at this time, it is a matter of whether it is notable enough to remain until release. And will it be crystal ball after the 8th Pokémon movie premieres next month? Sonic Mew 18:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Obvious Delete: content is ridiculous, non-notable and unencyclopedic. Martg76 22:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to challenge that statement. It is not ridiculous: It is true. It is not non-notable: It is a new Pokémon that fans will want to know about. (And there is a link from the Diamond/Pearl page.) And as for unencyclopedic: Poképrosal is discussing it, so that is no reason for vfd at this time. Sonic Mew 13:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Wikipedia is currently the #1 location for confirmed information on future/upcoming pokémon. Almafeta 23:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Are you serious or sarcastic? A Man In Black 03:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Serious. On other websites, you see things like "Well, Newlegendarymon is going to be a Bug-Psychic type. This is because the previous legendaries have been alternating as fliers-nonfliers, and elemental-physical-psychic, (as long as you don't count Moltres, because he doesn't count), and the types have been going by reverse Japanese alphabetical order, so we are due for a non-flying Bug Psychic pokémon." This page is rather free of such speculation. Almafeta 16:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - "Manene is the (unconfirmed) pre-evolution of Mr. Mime" isn't speculation? A Man In Black 20:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - "It is widely believed to be the pre-evolution of Mr. Mime" isn't speculation, though. It says what the entire fan-base believes is true now. Almafeta has a point, with NPOV we are giving the facts as facts. Thus, this is the best place to have such a article and vfd wouldn't do any good. Sonic Mew 07:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As non-notable as Yanma or not notable enough to have an article at this time? Sonic Mew 07:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this is ridiculous. Grue 11:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In what way is it ridiculous? Sonic Mew 20:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - This is ridiculous fancruft, original research and crystal-ballery. I don't think that Pokemons should be an exception to these rules. Grue 05:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is not paper: There is no reason to delete something for 'fancruft'. Besides, it is part of a project and would only get put back at a later date. You don't need a Crystal ball to see Manene coming. It will be in a movie next month! Original research is interesting, though? Can you proove that it is original research? Sonic Mew 20:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP, all other pokémon have articles, and this pokémon has been confirmed and has a picture. --GVOLTT 14:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP AS WELL This Pokemon is confrimed And Should still be listed k thanks. --PeterAKer 12:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as with any other POKéMON. No different from Usohachi, Manyula and Munchlax, none of which have been on VfD. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 13:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

William J Kendrick

Autobiographical article written by User:Billkendrick. Doesn't appear notable, google returns 44 hits. Delete--Sophitus 10:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE: Homepage personal bio article against Wiki policy -Husnock 11:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Husnock. Karol 17:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. - Etacar11 00:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy then delete. Autobiographic vanity, per edit history, no indication of encyclopedic notability. Barno 20:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually "about 29,900" hits for "Bill Kendrick" on Google. (But only 40 for "William J Kendrick", which I don't go by on a day-to-day basis)
Userfy. JamesBurns 09:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Universe Timeline

Pure fiction and original research Husnock 11:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: I think this is a fascinating article, I read it with great interest. But, it also seems to be absolutely pure fiction and original research. I combed the internet and could find no offical site or Star Trek publication that gives the information in this "timeline". Indeed, Star Trek has left the history of the Mirror Universe rather vauge. There are also no sources listed in this article and one user appears to have written the entire thing. So, while a really cool article, this is someone writing a science fiction story. Very sorry, but this article should be deleted. -Husnock 11:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is mostly fanon. 23skidoo 12:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proably safe to assume that this is original material -- the author has a certain capacity for making up stuff. I do wish he'd explained why the inhabitants of the Mirror Universe are so consistently paranoid and violent! ----Isaac R 17:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but suggest the editor take it to Wikicities Alternate History. Rick K 19:32, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep If you will not keep this then it must be merged into Mirror Universe. — Ŭalabio 21:19, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
- It must not be merged into Mirror Universe, when the poster made it all up out of his own head. Rick K 21:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I find the article very entertaining but unless the author strips it down to the "facts" that appear in the Star Trek television episodes and novels, it is a personal work of fiction and has no place in Wikipedia. - DS1953 23:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we should start a Wikiwimsy for stuff like this. Well written stuff the comes purely out of the author's head ----Isaac R 23:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a former (and semi-current) Trekkie, I can assure you that all of this is totally non-canon. Huge props to Voldemort however for imagination and creativity. Marblespire 00:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What? You mean there's no reference to Emperor Martin Luther King anywhere in the canon? ----Isaac R 00:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe it could simply be renamed, perhaps "theoretical mirror universe timeline" or "speculative". -- Voldemort 00:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this sort of thing is more of an Everything2 sort of thing than a Wikipedia sort of thing. A Man In Black 05:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-canon fanfic. Quale 00:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amusing but non-canonical fiction carmeld1 05:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculation and of course impossible to verify altered timelines. Megan1967 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense! You just have to ignore safety protocols that forbid using a transporter during an ion storm! ----Isaac R 21:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Every Vulcan knows that time travel is impossible. JamesBurns 09:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - It's time Wikipedia broke free from Vulcan attempts to stifle our creativity! ----Isaac R 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An amusing and moderately well attempted alternative history, but a work of imagination. The author should be encouraged to post his work in a more appropriate venue. WMMartin 18:03, 1 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprised this is still here - we've had ten days of discussion. What's the current status of this VFD ? WMMartin 12:40, 8 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Very interesting, but it's fan fiction. Nothing more.--Luspari 01:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete fan fiction. JamesBurns 09:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete though i thank the writer as i thouroughly enjoyed the read. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: reverted to redirect. sjorford →•← 23:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cruz Beckham

Not notable PatGallacher 11:12, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

There has already been some discussion of notable births on the Talk:2005 page. This person has no notability except that he has 2 well-known parents, even the entry is a redirect to his father. If we include him we have to include loads of children of celebrities. PatGallacher 11:09, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Comment it looks like an improperly coded redirect, rather than an actual article. since the beckhams' children have names that aren't likely to belong to anyone who is notable (brooklyn? c'mon), i dont see any harm in leaving it as a redirect, given the redirect is properly formatted. Nateji77 11:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you explain the distinction between a properly and improperly coded or formatted redirect? PatGallacher 12:17, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  - This was a properly coded redirect (i.e. it worked), but slapping a vfd notice on top of it stops it from working. Redirects should be discussed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion anyway, and I don't see any good reason for deleting this one, so I've reverted it. People searching for "Cruz Beckham" ought to be redirected to his father. sjorford →•← 12:34, 30 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. Postdlf 23:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rui_Cruz

no such notorious poet exists. the name and photo match that of a notorious portuguese surfer that is being slandered and made fun of in this manner. Lord KRISHNA 20:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With phrases like "Despite being hated and considered an idiot by almost everyone he mett due to his dificul personality people also realized his potential," this looks like an attempt at slander. There's no Rui Cruz on Portuguese Wikipedia and I can't find a mention of the supposed work on google. I don't speak Portuguese but the last two lines look like "I am Rui Cruz the man who seduces". Hardly poetry. michael 07:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to abstain because google is not reliable (as shown with some deletion attempts on old Persian poets) but I don't trust the user who created this. In fact I think other things like Image:WJSidis.jpg might also be fakes (and have no copyright tags.... gren 10:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no such poet. This page is a prank. - There is no school called Rui Unas (Rui Unas is portuguese comediant/entertainer) - "Panilas Ltd" literally means "Faggot Ltd" - "Que Ganda Mambo" means "What a big schlong" Inepu 12:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a big schlong! Funny, but a definite case for delete. It's not even written in good English. --Ben davison 13:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UkPaolo 16:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wonder if he's related Samuele de Gaunt? Perhaps we could make a family tree of these non-existant Portuguese poets? Or maybe not. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly written hoax. - Etacar11 00:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:22, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Megan1967 09:45, 31 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.

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Reason why the page should be deleted 85.101.216.181 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) This article is not objective.[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

DeleteThis article should be deleted because it is very subjective. All articles in Wikipedia should be objective.
KeepThe events pertaining to the 1974 twin illegal invasion, partition and occupation of the northern areas of the Republic of Cyprus and described in the article are true. You should keep this article. unsigned comment by IP 134.58.253.113
- possible sockpuppet the IP addy for that comment is a shared IP at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The IP has a total of >50 edits, but has 4 in the last day, all relating to the Turkey/Greece/Cyprus dispute. Feco 17:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A strongly POV fork of Cyprus dispute, created by User:Argyrosargyrou as an apparent means of getting around the current protection of the Cyprus dispute article. Argyrosargyrou appears to be something of an edit warrior, judging from the Cyprus dispute page history. I suggest that this article be merged with Cyprus dispute and deleted. -- ChrisO 11:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (Added) Large chunks of the content appear to be a straight copy-and-paste from http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/15.htm . It's not clear whether this constitutes a copyright violation, but it's certainly bad practice. -- ChrisO 17:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if that's where the introduction originally came from then why don't you nominate the "Cyprus dispute" page for deletion as well since that's where I copied it from before editing it. Dobule standards is what is and more prove if any more was need that the vfd for this page is part of a contend war and therefore invalid ! --Argyrosargyrou 10:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That section has now been reworded so this no possibility of copyright violations.--Argyrosargyrou 10:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the 3rd attempt of User:Argyrosargyrou(currently under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Argyrosargyrou) to get around the protection of Cyprus dispute, he has tried Cyprus issue, Cyprus problem and now this. Request immediate deletion or redirect. --E.A 12:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a POV fork. This is yet another attempt of User:Argyrosargyrou to push through his view on the Cyprus dispute/issue/conflict, and is virtually identical with his last edit there (before the page was locked): Argyro's last edit - Snchduer 13:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This Vfd is an attempt by the Turkish propagandists and apologists named above (Snchduer and E.A) to deny the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the crimes against humanity which Turkey perpetrated against Greek Cypriots including mass human rights violations of which Turkey has been found Guilty of by the European Court of Human Rights, destruction of cultural heritage, illegal colonisation and fate of missing persons. These Turkish apologists have repeatedly vandalised the Cyprus dispute page in order to prevent the facts and figures from being included and now they are using the same disruptive tactics here.--Argyrosargyrou 13:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. I nominated it for deletion, and I have no involvement with any of the parties nor the disputed articles. -- ChrisO 16:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are a Turkish apologist and do have involvement in disputed articles since you have nominated this historical article for deletions. That makes you a holocaust denier. It is sickening that people like you want to deny the truth about crimes against humanity to the whole world.--Argyrosargyrou 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIV, WP:NPA, Godwin's law, don't compare people to nazis. Radiant_* 13:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - And anyway this page was originally nominated for deletion by the Turkish apologist Snchduer who is involved in a content war on the Cyprus dispute page and is responsible for repeated vandalism of that page in order to exclude that facts that I have placed on this page.--Argyrosargyrou 09:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it's a POV fork, so merge back, unfork and delete and use WP:RFC to decide the debate if necessary. Radiant_* 14:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- It's a point of fact not a point of view. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus occured and is a historical issue. Deletion of this page is tantamount to denying the NAZI hlocaust ever happend--Argyrosargyrou 14:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CIV, WP:NPA, Godwin's law, and read what I just wrote. We already have an article on the Cyprus matter and there's no point in having two of them. Radiant_* 13:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    - As I have already said that article does not contain anything about war crimes, ethnic cleaning, missing persons, destruction of cultural heritage, human rights violations and illegal colonisation and it equates the innocent victims with the brutal aggressors. Every attempt I have made to include the historical facts in that article has been met with Vandalism by the Turkish apologists who have taken it over and are conspiring with each other to prevent the truth form being heard.--Argyrosargyrou 15:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It will contain as soon as you calm down a bit, and stop trying and rewriting the whole article in order for these facts to be included. Oh, and start accepting the Turkish Cypriot point of view as well. (mind, I am not Turkish nor Turkish Cypriot) - Snchduer 15:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. POV forks like these are not candidates for speedy deletion, to the best of my knowledge—and I asked around. JRM · Talk 15:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
- Agreed. The policy clearly doesn't allow for speedy deletion in such circumstances. -- ChrisO 16:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but regular deletion may be appropriate. Or not. That's what this discussion is for. R adiant _* 13:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Note that my comment was in direct response to several speedy delete votes that have since mysteriously disappeared. JRM · Talk 07:48, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
send to RFC; there probably is scope for an article on the specific military actions of the Turks as a subpage to the Cyprus dispute page, but RFC is the place to sort it, not VFD. Dunc|☺ 17:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and send to RFC. A POV fork is not the solution to a content dispute. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more of Argyrosargyrou's attempt to rewrite history. Rick K 19:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, everyone note that there is already an RfC on the user in question b/c the problems are spread across multiple articles. Feco 04:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Another well known Turkish apologist that has also nominated the Hellenic Genocide page for deletion as part of a content war. --Argyrosargyrou 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you're having a hard time keeping all us Turkish apologists straight. I never nominated Hellenic Genocide for deletion. In fact, I actually voted to keep it, stating that wiki had a big gap in covering the events in question. I changed my vote to delete after seeing you monopolize the article, abuse wikipedia, insult users and refuse to accept any other editors' contributions to the article. I highly encourage folks to read Hellenic Genocide and its associated VfD page. Feco 17:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if possible as a re-creation of previously deleted content. If that argument doesn't convince, then delete as POV fork. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute nonsense.--Argyrosargyrou 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no place on WP for this sort of POV fork. OpenToppedBus - Talk 10:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as POV fork. - Mustafaa 18:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as skewed POV. This site ignores ligitimate Turkish concerns, the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, and the primary motivation for the UNSC resolutions (setting precedents affecting British, U.S. and Russian spheres of influence with restive oppressed minorities)- Expatkiwi 05:01, 2 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The text as it currently reads is full of pro-Greek POV and clearly needs a lot of work. However, the concept of the article is valid (it has the potential to be far more than a POV fork). Just because we have an article Napoleonic Wars doesn't preclude the existence of Battle of Waterloo. I think that everyone needs to calm down and get back to editing good articles. Phlogistomania 13:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This needs sorting out, but not on VfD. My preference: Get rid of obviously POV titles (like Greek Cypriot Genocide or Turkish Cypriot Genocide), treat a broad overview in Cyprus dispute, and have a neutral article specifically on the Turkish invasion (which is part of the broader conflict but a specific military "event") at this location, preferably one that treats the invasion as narrowly as possible and refers the reader to Cyprus dispute for information on the wider geopolitical issues (so as to avoid fighting over the same issues on a multitude of pages). --Delirium 01:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Duplication of Cyprus dispute. ~~~~ 16:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep We need different views of the same subject. Aalien 20:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that the information shouldn't be there, nor that the Greek POV not be reported, but separating out all pro-Greek information into one article is not the Wikipedia way. Rick K 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The Cyprus Issue itself is a POV issue. In my opinion there is no way that articles surrounding it will get away from POV issues. So, best thing to do is let both POVs exist not suppress them. I know that user Argyrosargyrou has been trying to pass his GC POV on Cyprus dispute without success due to an "organised gang" of Turkish or TC POV individuals. Also, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is a significant event in the Cyprus dispute which does deserve its own article. --Ank99 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Your personal attacks are not acceptable. Just because someone wants to keep an article NPOV does not mean they adhere to the opposite POV from the one in this article. Rick K 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep The article is definitely not perfect, but it does contain relevant material. --Valentinian 22:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why can't that information be in the original article that this was forked from? Rick K 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep This article certainly has more references than the pro-Turkish side. In light with recent developments of another user, I think we should keep this and let him share his point of view, just as others have. BTW this is not a duplication of the Cyprus dispute. It only uses the same sources of info. This is not rewriting history. This action is obviously a historical truth. There was an invasion. But if I were not so busy or if I were not on vacation, would I sit back while I see various new articles pop up with a Turkish POV allegedly, which may be historical just as this article is? No I would not. I would state my own opinion as others have done. Nevertheless, I would have done thinks a lot differently than anyone here. I was already branded as a person with a POV but I would not go on a crusade to write articles for the hell of it. By now whoever started it is irrelevant and the fact that it is happening is the issue. I have a lot more to say on this matter but I have to be brief right now. I have to get back to my vacation. PEACE and GOD BLESS.(UNFanatic 05:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Strong Keep I cannot understand why it should be deleted. I thought the Turkish Military is very proud on the success of the invasion. When there are articles on single battles, why a war cannot have its own article? —Geraki 2005-06-13 T 14:56 Z
- Who said it couldn't? Where has that ever been anyone's contention? Rick K 23:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Argyrosargyrou, your comments only discredit yourself, not the others. Stop behaving like a spoiled child. - Snchduer 12:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argyrosargyrou, I'd like to know what your vision for Cyprus would be, as you obviously oppose two countries on the island. Is your mood for (a) a federal state in Cyprus, (b) a unitary state under the 1960 constitution, (c) a unitary state under a new constitution, (d) or a province of the Hellenic Republic? As you know, I support recognition for the TRNC. )- Expatkiwi 05:04, 2 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what user talk pages were made for. I cannot see such a discussion contributing meaningfully to the VfD—no disrespect intended. JRM · Talk 17:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

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

Delete This article should be deleted or there should be another article as "Cyprus Peace Opearation". Turks did not come to the island to make an invasion. Turks came to island to protect the Turkish Cypriots who were sufferring of persecution by Greek Cypriots. Maverick16 (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Userfied. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted Townsend

Vanity page by User:Tedtownsend who has turned his user page into a redirect to this page. Uppland 11:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. Nateji77 12:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, autobiography--Sophitus 13:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy by deleting this and reverting the redirect on User:Tedtownsend. Lupo 13:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, move content to user page -- UkPaolo 15:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfied. Rick K 19:44, May 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology (list)

This is merely a copy of material from Lithuanian mythology under a title that's both non-standard (list titles should begin "List of...") and grammatically incorrect (it should be "mythical beings"). It doesn't seem very useful as a redirect either. If at some time in the future it seems a good idea to separate out the list from the article, it can be done using a better article-name. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's a mistake. The article should be moved to other, with more correct name. See more on Talk: Lithuanian mythology Linas Lituanus 15:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Delete - agreed... duplicated data, and should be on a "List of..." page in any case. UkPaolo 15:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate content. Megan1967 09:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 09:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep (but probably rename) for now. Would appear to be the beginnings of an attempt to clean up Lithuanian mythology splitting it into an article about the mythology, and one listing relevant deities and spirits etc. ~~~~ 16:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The page creator has recognised that he made a mistake; frankly, it's now a speedy candidate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete based on comments of Mel Etitis Mozzerati 20:38, 2005 Jun 4 (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, exact copy already exists at user page. - SimonP 03:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas bosboom

Soley self promotion, content should be moved to user page, and this article deleted. UkPaolo 15:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy--Sophitus 18:26, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy - Etacar11 00:25, 31 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dog Bone Sanctuary

Band from Seattle, apparently "just prior to exploding onto the scene". No entry on allmusic, appears to have only made demos so far. Delete JeremyA 15:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while they actually seem to be a known, if minor, Seattle band, this page reeks of so much vanity and POV that I think it cannot be saved.--Sophitus 18:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. - Etacar11 00:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encylopedic at this time. Maybe at some point in the future if they further establish themselves. <>Who ?¿? 00:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was, kept as a redirect - SimonP 03:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Echani Handmaiden

The only link was from Bao-Dur which also linked to The last Handmaiden. In turn, both of those links only served as redirects to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters#The Last Handmaiden. I removed the link from Bao-Dur here and made the redirect more specific. Ubermonkey 15:42, 30 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Handmaiden

The last Handmaiden and this page only served as redirects to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters#The Last Handmaiden, and the other page seemed the more approriate one to keep. I made the redirect more specific. Ubermonkey 15:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whoa, whoa, whoa. While I 100% agree that this article should not only be about some Star Wars character, Handmaid/Handmaiden are important concepts in mythology, history (esp. the history of female occupations and economic classes) and literature. There is definitely an encyclopedia article to be written but it's probably going to be difficult to research online. I've just stub-tagged the article, and hopefully that will get it some attention. Soundguy99 18:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, an important concept. --Scimitar 22:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote keep if there was anything in the article. It seems that the handmaiden plays a ceremonial role in Wicca for example. However, at the moment, the article is literally blank so I would favour deleting it if it remains blank.Capitalistroadster 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree 100% with Soundguy99. The article is notable enough to keep, although it should be expanded, its blankness should not be cause for deletion as it has the definite capability of expansion -CunningLinguist 06:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Handmaidens appear numerous times in mythologies and literature. Megan1967 09:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - had a go at expanding. Proto 11:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Nooo, keep redirected to Star Wars, just like Star and Wars redirect there.~~ Keep as rewritten. R adiant _* 13:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. this is an article to be expanded. It will be easy to create another article for the KOTOR II character. -- User:Psi edit

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 - kpet - SimonP 03:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The New York Ripper

unneccessary page, lack of content UkPaolo 15:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

leepl has been expanded and improved since the first version Dunc|☺ 17:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten although I don't feel strongly about this article and a Merge & redirect to Lucio Fulci could be appropriate. Soundguy99 17:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a minor movie, but seems like an okay aricle to me--Sophitus 18:22, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - DS1953 23:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lucio Fulci. A minor film. Megan1967 09:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable. —Xezbeth 09:56, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
'keep please no reason for deleting it Yuckfoo 16:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, wide-release commercial films are I think inhererently notable, even if "minor"; no particular need to merge.--Pharos 08:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Lucio Fulci. JamesBurns 09:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep a quite notable fulci film. but if it exists, so should several other fulci films which don't have articles - Niz 21:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okahandja

~~an unneccessary one-line definition of an insignificant place UkPaolo 15:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)~~ OK, agreed... Keep. I've just been reading about it on Google, and would agree the article is clearly worthy of being kept, although it is in serious need of expanding. Hedley - I'd never consider it insignificant solely based on it being in Namibia. UkPaolo 16:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, bordering on strong keep. Over 80,000 Google hits for "Okahandja". Just because its in Namibia doesn't make it 'insignificant' - It's the same size as a lot of US towns with articles. The article is very poor, and needs expansion without a doubt (substubs are gone which doesn't help), but the topic is notable. Hedley 15:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Actually, I'll probably expand it myself in a few minutes here. We need more African content on Wikipedia, not less. Scimitar 16:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have expanded it into a decent stub (in my own opinion, at any rate). I think it rates a keep, now. Scimitar 16:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Scimitar... you're right that makes it a decent stub, certainly deserving of being kept now. UkPaolo 16:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scimitar's stub and expand. Well done Scimitar. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (my vote would have been keep even without expansion) - good work that Scimitar. Grutness...wha? 04:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by all means. - Mustafaa 18:47, 31 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rapemurder

The article states that the term is uncommon. Also a tautology, and I'm not sure it could be much more than a dictdef. Joyous 15:49, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete; term is very seldom used, and is only a dicdef. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tenofalltrades--Sophitus 18:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe the "create article" page should say, "Please write about generally known subject areas -- don't invent new ones." ----Isaac R 18:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. It's not a tautology, though. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Megan1967 09:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~~~ 16:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete not a dictionary Mozzerati 19:07, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -SimonP 03:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sindhanur

~~an unneccessary one-line definition which doesn't make sense UkPaolo 15:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)~~ keep UkPaolo 22:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up a bit, keep real place. Kappa 21:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place, thanks, Kappa, tho I can understand UkPaolo's confusion. Rick K 21:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

nice work, Kappa! i really thought this article wasn't going anywhere, but you've fixed it well. keep. UkPaolo 22:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Well done Kappa. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. utcursch | talk 13:32, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goga

dubious importance, lack of info given... been flagged for cleanup previously UkPaolo 15:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put the "importance" tag on it, hoping somebody would explain what it means. There are a lot of Google hits for this word, but the first three pages didn't seem to return anything having to do with Sri Lankan comedy, and a search for goga "sri lanka" comedy gorilla wasn't productive. Delete if not expanded by the end of the voting period. Rick K 19:50, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Megan1967 09:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RickK and Megan1967. Quale 05:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diamond arts

This appears to be a personal page for a 15 year old. I have placed a "vanity" tag on their IP address talk page. func (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. UkPaolo 16:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ludicrous. --Sn0wflake 23:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity and for the love of God, learn how to capitalize. - Etacar11 00:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 09:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, i know i read this page and i know that its vanity, but is it really that big of a deal. if some teen makes a personal page.

Namela 9:56,31 may 2005

Yes, it is. Check out Wikipedia:Vanity_page. Talking about yourself is fine on a User page, however. --Etacar11 23:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that vantiy pages are not big of deal. Namela 6:31 june 1, 2005

Delete. Frjwoolley 18:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two sockpuppets courtesy of User:Namela --Etacar11 19:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Namela2:33 how do you know there sock puppets.some people my may just agree with me.

Because the edit history shows that you put those two votes there. --Etacar11 20:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I checked my Name wasnt up there so they must real.

Namela 3:26 2 jun 2005

The edit at 14:40 BY YOU is when they were added. --Etacar11 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok sorry for the two sock puppets if you say so Etacar11

Namela 3:52 jun 2005

keepNamela has a point do,whats so bad about a vanity page.-- Maxiop 7:33, 2 june 2005
keep. yeah Namela is right.fight 7:57 2 june 05

votes by new users whose only contribs (so far) are to this page (or their user page) --Etacar11 01:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't anybody just speedy this? --Sn0wflake 01:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

keep.there are better ways then deleteing this.

wish 8:37 june 3, 2005

keep.Its not that wrong, i kind of like it

loo 8:48 june 3,2005

Two more new users with no edits beyond this and a sentence on their user page. And all share a similar unfamiliarity with the shift key. Obvious sockpuppetry. --Etacar11 13:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Gamaliel 13:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Im not a sock puppet.fight 13:52 3 jun 2005
Hes right he has own user page .clinggo 2:09

keep.Ok im new here but i beleave that diamond arts should stay.Popin 5:00 3 jun 2005
keep.Namela has a darn good point.you dont have to delete a vanity page,you can just skip it.Kingionl 5:08 jun 3 2005
keep.Namela your are so right.Fryuio 5:20 3 jun 2005
- Three more "new users" whose only edits are here and to their user pages. More sockpuppets. And quit coming to my talk page and claiming you are not. You aren't convincing. For the love of God, someone speedy this. --Etacar11 22:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity, and poorly written to boot. --StoatBringer 11:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jeezz! hydnjo talk 01:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I now have proof that those are not sockpuppets.because i was gone for two days away form mobile so there Etacar11.And you seem to by only person who writes back. the people above have never wrote me back so why you?.Namela 9:17 5 jun 2005

I must say I fully support Etacar11 on this issue. For evidence, see the comment in my Talk page. Namela, what you are doing is completely wrong. I suggest you actually READ the links I left for you on your welcome message or we will be forced to report you to an administrator. Sarg 11:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete (again): Namela, Maxiop , fight, wish, loo, clinggo, Popin, Kingionl, Fryuio: We are the ~~champions~~ puppets, we are the ~~champions~~ puppets...... hydnjo talk 02:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok if your so sure their sock puppets, then why not just seedy delete this then.A matter of fact why not just delete it all,but remember if any of you ever make a vanity page just remember the teen whos page you deleted.So there no more SOCKPUPPETS as you clam,no more talking to you at your user page etacar11,so i hope your happy now etacar11 and sarg.so delete and be at freaking peace.So go ahead delete it if you must i dont care anymore.

Buh-bye now. hydnjo talk 23:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Celestianpower 17:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Posted on my talk page: I gave up Hope your happy hydnjo.me and my friends were just trying to vote,but no you and etacar11 called them sock puppets so now none of our votes count.And im a boy not a girl,thanks alot.Namela 8:47 jun 5 2005

I see. So now it gets personal does it? Well excusssse me little boy and your imaginary friends! hydnjo talk 07:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC

keep Namelas not that bad of a guy,i talked to him at his user page.Quin T 13:27 6 jun 2005

Comment. This is yet another sockpuppet of Namela. Sarg 14:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can maybe accept a well-written Vanity. But this is just plain crap. And I've a suspicion Namela wrote it himself. Loom91 13:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The teens can copy the information to their personal pages and in the future if and when Diamond Arts becomes a reality, the article can be re-established.--AI 16:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept as a redirect - SimonP 03:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Minor Imperial characters in Star Wars

This page has no links to it, and is only a redirect to Minor villains in Star Wars. Ubermonkey 16:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore. Harmless redirect. If it really needs to go, then take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is a better place for it. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that feature. Ubermonkey 18:24, 31 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 - kept as a redirect - SimonP 03:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Minor Sith and dark Jedi in Star Wars

This page has no links to it, and is only a redirect to Minor villains in Star Wars. Ubermonkey 16:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore. Harmless redirect. If it really needs to go, then take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is a better place for it. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that feature. Ubermonkey 18:24, 31 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lentilwars

This game was released (in beta) a week ago and doesn't seem to be notable. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. CDC (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quale 05:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Bryce
Keep. --lancelottjones 00:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Above vote was lancelottjones's third edit. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:14, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete, by the way. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:16, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Midwestern African American Wiccan Name for God

Not factual - Wicca didn't exist until the middle of the 20th century. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "a resurgence of spiritualistic vampires are now calling themselves antonarian vampires"??? Hoax, gibberish. Kaibabsquirrel 19:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I put the "disputed" tag on it almost three weeks ago, asking for proof of this assertion: "Anton" is also the Greek root of the Egyptian word Aten, which means "Praiseworthy One" or "Priceless One"., and have gotten no response. Rick K 19:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mike is misreading Wicca, but that's beside the point. This idea that there's this massive movement of African-American animists is absurd. Conflating African Animism with European Wicca is just plain ignorant. RickK's efforts to get verification seal the deal. ----Isaac R 02:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very similar information to the deleted article ANTON (see VfD vote here). Dsmdgold 04:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as unverifiable. Megan1967 09:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was meaning to nominate this myself. - Mustafaa 18:48, 31 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Hile

Not vanity per se (created by a student of his), but not important or well-known enough for an article.Αλεξ Σ 17:24, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete or my music teacher should have an article, too :). Karol 17:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete close enough to vanity, certainly no-one important. UkPaolo 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. - Etacar11 00:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Megan1967 09:58, 31 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sayat

There are 36,782 communes in the French Republic, shall we have entries on all of them? Unless this commune is notable and some text is added to the page (there is currently one sentence), we should delete it. In the meanwhile, a list of communes can be added to the article on the Puy-de-Dôme département. Karol 17:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

"shall we have entries on all of them?" Absolutely - just as we already do for small US towns. Keep and fill in by translating from French article if need be. - Mustafaa 17:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- OK then - can wetake this of the VfD list? Karol 17:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP Absolutely, Mustafaa... we should have entries for all commune's like this. Granted the page could do with some more info, but that's much more likely to happen if we keep barebones stub's like this. Does no harm! UkPaolo 18:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all real places, but let the voting period run its course. Rick K 19:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. (Just to make the origin of this application clear) Karol 21:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. No places should be deleted. it's geographical coverage, esp in the US, is one of the best features of wikipedia, SqueakBox 21:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Sayat, Auvergne, France. Vegaswikian 05:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this too please Yuckfoo 16:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orcines

There are 36,782 communes in the French Republic, shall we have entries on all of them? Unless this commune is notable and some text is added to the page (there is currently one sentence), we should delete it. In the meanwhile, a list of communes can be added to the article on the Puy-de-Dôme département. Karol 17:32, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. We keep Rambot articles (and rightfully so); how is this different? These are prime examples of articles that exist to be expanded. Presumably, in the fullness of time, residents of these communes will come and fill them in--but this process won't start without these bare-bones articles. Meelar (talk) 17:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK... I wasn't in yet on this philosophy. Now I understand. How can we take the article of the VfD list? Karol 17:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - this should be kept such that in the future people may add to it. No reason to remove. UkPaolo 18:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
gardez toutes les communes Dunc|☺ 19:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all real places, but let the VfD run its course. Rick K 19:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. (Just to make the origin of this application clear) Karol 21:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Real place with community of interest. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand -CunningLinguist 06:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and all other 37k comunes. James F. (talk) 09:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with GameFAQs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GameFAX

Non-notible. It's about an April Fool's Day prank for GameFAQ. -SocratesJedi | Talk 17:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, tedious. Bennie Noakes 20:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Don't we have an April Fools Day topic that this would fit in? Sonic Mew 20:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- We do, but this prank is neither in/about Wikipedia nor widely enough noted to merit inclusion. Delete; I doubt many of the real site's users would consider this significant enough for even a note in the GameFAQs article. Barno 20:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into GameFAQs. --Sn0wflake 23:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to GameFAQs. Megan1967 09:59, 31 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kyle Rodgers

15 year old amateur hockey player in California. No significant achievements. Looks like vanity to me. Xcali 17:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity--Sophitus 18:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity UkPaolo 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. - Etacar11 00:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity -CunningLinguist 06:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 09:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Kateness

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 listed on WP:RFD instead. sjorford →•← 08:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestries of United Statians

Unnecessary redirection Frjwoolley 17:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong place. Please take redirects that you want deleted to the proper place: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Uncle G 19:31, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
- Sorry, and thanks for the correction! Frjwoolley 20:36, 30 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graphic-analytical method

This "method" is a non-notable invention of the author (Valentyn Stetsiuk), who appears to have no academic credentials and to be the only person to have used it. Judging by his page, it doesn't even get plausible results. Delete. Mustafaa 17:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the author: http://cf.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/people/personal/get-personal-page2.cfm?PersonID=8280

Delete. Non-notable, spurious. The author did not realize that Wikipedia is not the place to submit such material. It is a personal method of his own devising (no original research policy), and it does not seem to be clearly formulated or expressed. He also has no credentials in the field that I know of. The key issue here though is not even his lack of credentials: the article itself is spurious. Decius 17:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is also self-promotion, since this is his own personal method (the aforementioned Valentyn wrote this article himself). Decius 17:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If printed in a peer-reviewed journal (not very difficult, nowadays), I'll opt for recreation, until then, this is internet kookery. dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the only reference is a geocities page, the subject is in trouble. Quale 05:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not each true is plausible. It is not plausible, but the Earth moves around the Sun, not the Sun does.

Delete. original research. or, in this case, 'research'.Hornplease 20:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This method hepls to understand the nature of rhotacism and zetacism.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mooldong

Seems like patent nonsense, delete--Sophitus 17:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

delete total rubbish UkPaolo 20:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as patent nonsense. — P Ingerson (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. - Etacar11 00:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as squelm. ----Isaac R 02:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. Megan1967 10:01, 31 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) a

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yrrem

Seems to be a spoof. No mention of this product found in any online source except Wikipedia. Name claimed to derive from non-existent Yiddish word "Y'Rem"; happens to be English "merry" spelled backwards. Main ingredient is non-existent "Yppah-root extract" ("happy" backwards). Also alleged to contain "essence of sperm whale", a non-existent product (though spermaceti and ambergris are real and halfway plausible in context). Claimed to be illegal because of its (implied to be genuine) aphrodisiac effects. 129.97.79.144 18:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But where can I get some Yppah root? Rlw (Talk) 19:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - total rubbish. UkPaolo 20:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. Megan1967 10:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it actually is a fragrance and purposely supposed to sound like that... DO NOT DELETE. MRJ 16:21, 3 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, MRJ, where can I buy some?129.97.79.144 16:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) i have this and so do lots of other people... stop being ignorant. keep this article. User:pussycat 19:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yule Marble

Short orphaned article, seems to have no potential besides someday being merged with Marble. ~~Delete~~ Eliot 19:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, it appears to be Colorado's official state rock (don't the politicians have anything better to do than declare official rocks?) Average Earthman 20:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge... info should be included, but this article doesn't appear to have much potential for expansion, is solely a dictdef. Merge with Marble (and could include info in Colorado page too). UkPaolo 20:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've Googled. It was used for a memorial for some chap called Lincoln in some place called Washington D.C., and also the Tomb of the Unknowns in some cemetery in a place called Arlington. These sound at all interesting to you perhaps? Keep. Average Earthman 20:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable type of rock. Thanks Earthman. Kappa 21:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Now that there's some good information coming in. Seems like this could quickly turn into an article about the Yule quarry rather than about the stone itself. Eliot 21:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Sn0wflake 23:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well done Average Earthman for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Earthman's rewrite. Notable rock. Megan1967 10:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. JamesBurns 09:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I like rocks. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Safety trial

The entire text of this article is: "A safety trial is when a nuclear bomb is exploded on purpose without almost any release of nuclear energy." Although I am not an expert, I believe this is both incomplete and inaccurate. Anyway, information about the safety testing procedures for nuclear weapons ought to be in the nuclear weapon article, not a separate article. Russ Blau (talk) 19:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A 'safety trial' can be a wide range of things, the vast majority of which do not involve the detonation of nuclear bombs. Average Earthman 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is very vague, as above safety trial can cover a host of meaning. Article is very incomplete and misleading. UkPaolo 20:47, 30 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Stribling

Short article about a college student who got some minor media attention last month for hoaxing a computer science conference. Apparently not notable enough to warrant any links. The hoax itself might be worth an article that this name could redirect to, but right now it doesn't have one. Eliot 20:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, delete UkPaolo 20:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the hoax nor the hoaxer is encyclopedic. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:38, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The hoax was fairly notable, and in fact was somewhat significant. However, since there's no article on the conference nor its parent organization, and no established name for the hoax, the relevant part of the content should be merged to some article like Academic hoaxes or Hoaxes in computing. Mr. Stribling probably does not merit an article, as most of the coverage was about his computer program rather than about him, but the name should be a redirect to whatever article gets the hoax writeup. By the way: I see a number of article on VfD that read as if they were written by Stribling's program. Is he playing here? Barno 21:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SCIgen

Short article on a piece of software which generates nonsense, which got minor media notice last month for generating a paper which was accepted by a CS conference. Not notable enough to have any links to it, hard to see how it could expand any more. Could redirect to an article on the hoax, if there were one. Eliot 20:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - comes up a lot on the web. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

SCIgen was written to hoax the organisers of SCI World MultiConference on Systemics, Cybernetics. This conference has been criticised Justin Zobel. The claim for 50% acceptance appears to be solely on the experience with the authors experience in submitting two papers to this one conference Stribling et al.

Keep provided it is edited to put it in context DAHordle
Keep a new about that appears on Scientific American, June 2005 (Spanish edition, Barcelona). Pèrez 2 July 2005 07:25 (UTC) Post Scriptum: That might be an example as someone can vandalize an Scientific project.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics

Stub about a conference which mentions nothing other than that it fell for a hoax by accepting a scholarly paper written by a nonsense-generator last month. The conference itself would make a good topic, but I can't see this article growing into one. Could redirect to a general article about the hoax, if there were one. Eliot 20:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are dozens of such conferences held all over the world every day. Rarely notable - this one is not. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:19, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael A. Smith

A guy who spat in Jane Fonda's face. Not notable, and the information in that article is in Jane Fonda anyways. --Conti|✉ 20:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. I mean, how low a bar do we want to set on this sort of thing? Throwing purple dye at Tony Blair? Throwing slurry over Robert Kilroy-Silk? Or spraying Kilroy in the face with water? Average Earthman 20:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, delete. UkPaolo 20:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His fifteen minutes never started. Gamaliel 20:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything worth saying has been said on Fonda's page. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:05, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Since it is already merged, delete and remove all inwikis to this article, to avoid its re-creation. --Sn0wflake 23:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the content is already on Jane Fonda. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate content. Megan1967 10:05, 31 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Todd (Computer Pioneer)

This is a vanity article, of no real use to the general public. Mushin 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, delete. UkPaolo 20:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orientation of article changed to focus on its reason for being in the wiki. 1:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete self-promotion CDC (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 05:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saint Paul's Lutheran Church

Rationale: There is, in fact, no ELCA congregation in St Paul, MN called Saint Pauls Lutheran. (see here). This article was originally created as Saint Paul's Lutheran Cathedral and consisted of nonsense text calling it the "servant cathedral" in St Paul. I edited it to remove such reference and make it sort of generic about a congregation in order to match what was done with the article Central Lutheran Cathedral which was edited and moved to Central Lutheran Church. Then I discovered that there isn't even a congregation with that name in St Paul, MN.

Additionally, there is no such thing as a Lutheran cathedral in the US, so I have also requested the deletion of that category. This article is therefore worthless and should be deleted. EdwinHJ | Talk 20:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, delete it UkPaolo 21:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no Saint Paul's Lutheran Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, but there is Saint Paul-Reformation Lutheran Church, which IMHO is notable for the fact that 24% of its congregation identifies as GLBT [11]. If someone were to write an article on that church, this could be a good redirect. But if no such article gets written, then yeah, delete. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As it happens, I am a member of "St Paul-Ref". I started such an article. I would oppose using this page as a redirect to Saint Paul-Reformation Lutheran Church because I wouldn't want its edit history to be combined. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. JRM · Talk 20:53, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Shared hosting

Spam. DELETE. CAPS LOCK 20:24, 30 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, although the logic in so doing is borked at best. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11

Not encyclopedic, vanity. --SPUI (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --SPUI (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Wikimedia. We have articles on all of the Wikipedia sister projects. RickK 22:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikimedia undermines that argument, as quite pointedly we don't have an article for Wikispecies. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Keep per RickK. I think the project itself is more debatable than this. Hedley 22:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --WikiFan04^{ß 17:39, 30 May 2005 (CDT)}
Delete. This is a good first step to finally deleting the project itself. --Alterego 22:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Why would we possibly want to do that? RickK 22:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - I explained my reasonings here last year. IMHO, it should be moved to wikicities and be displayed with advertisements. It's aim to be neutral is a joke...Please help preserve their memory. Some, such as Ward Churchill, preserve a different point of view. Anyway, OT.--Alterego 02:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - Some have suggested the project be deleted for various reasons. However, I don't think that deleting the article would have anything to do with it (see Nupedia, that's defunct but still has an article). Hedley 23:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My guess (though I have no numbers) is that this site is much less popular, in terms of visitors or audience, than many we would delete as non-notable or advertisements. Are we applying a different standard to this article because it is a Wikimedia project? If we do, is that a self-reference? Demi ^T/_C 22:58, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
- It is debatable that such standards of self-reference already exist. For example, Angela Beesley may be less notable than some articles deleted, but stays for being a major figure within a major internet project. The same may end up applying here. Hedley 23:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - But is this a major part? Or is it just a spinoff that has failed to get any real usage? --SPUI (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hordes of people vote keep on bands with one EP, small town radio stations, and schools with only a few dozen students. It seems absurd to delete ~~a major web project like~~ this because we're over-concerned about being self-referential. Gamaliel 23:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major web project"? Its own statistics page says that it has "274 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.". That's about the size of my own web site. SPUI's search shows 20 results for what links to this site's main page (6 if one discounts the links that turn out to be from this and other Wikimedia projects). One of my own web pages has four times that many (0 of which are from Wikimedia projects). This wiki gets 4 hits in total on Google Groups. The URL of another of my web pages was mentioned 8 times on Usenet in the past week alone, according to Google Groups. Is my web site a "major web project"? If these are the criteria, please let me know how soon my web site will have its own Wikipedia article. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  - I thought the wikimemorial was more active and significant than it is, but reading your comments and the votes below, it seems I had a mistaken impression about the size, scope, and status of the project. Gamaliel 15:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Alexa lumps it in with the rest of Wikipedia, so I can't give an Alexa rank. But a Google search for links to it and a Google search for "sep11.wikipedia.org" give VERY few results outside Wikipedia and mirrors. If this were not a Wikimedia project, it would be unanimously deleted as vanity. At most it should get one or two sentences in Wikimedia, and even that is debatable. --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find SPUI's analysis to be convincing. No special treatment for wikimedia. Quale 00:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RickK. Also, VFD does not seem appropriate to be the first step in debating whether or not we should deleting the project. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with SPUI (for a change) and Quale. Megan1967 10:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this at least, IMO entire project should be deleted (wikipedia is not a memorial) Proto 11:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but Wikipeople might be. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Abstain; iff the project stays, this page should stay. People who wish the project removed should take it to WP:RFC, or possibly, meta. Radiant_* 13:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a WikiProject. It's not part of Wikipedia at all. WP:RFC doesn't cover it. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Delete the article. Archive the project. There's no more to write about this than there is about some random WikiProject. Just because it got wrongly moved to its own wiki doesn't make it encyclopedic. See also Meta:Babel for recent discussion. Angela . 17:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
keep please it is factual and npov Yuckfoo 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- An article about the fences in my back garden would be factual, verifiable, and NPOV. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  - the odds are much greater that someone would search for information about this project than your garden Yuckfoo 21:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - So your actual rationale (elicited after prodding and which turns out to be "factual and npov and in my estimation a likely thing that someone would search an encyclopaedia for") does involve a notability bar. I disagree with the height at which you place it. I don't think that this is something that people are going to enter directly into the "Go" box. (As I said earlier, if I did I would have voted Redirect.) For starters: It's not even the name of the project. According to the project's own main page it is called In Memoriam: September 11, 2001. According to Meta it is called 9-11 Memorial. (I'd have voted Redirect for either of those names, as well.) I'd like to see some evidence for any assertion that people are going to look up this name, though, given that it isn't even the name of the project. What makes you think that people are going to look for an article with this name? Uncle G 15:26, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Meta. Alterego and RickK both miss the point, but in different ways. Alterego is wrong, in that deleting this article has nothing whatever to do with removing the WikiMedia project. RickK is wrong, in that it is Meta where one will find individual articles on all of the WikiMedia projects (both current and proposed). Demi, Quale, Megan1967, and Angela all hit the nail on the head. The same standards for inclusion in Wikipedia should apply to wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation as they do to wikis run by others. As RickK's shoot-self-in-the-foot argument demonstrates, Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article for Wikispecies. A quick look at the recent changes verifies what Angela says on Meta:Babel about this wiki: It's nearly dead itself. And as pointed out above, there are few external references to it. If it were anyone else's wiki, we wouldn't have a separate article on it. We already have those "one or two sentences in Wikimedia" that SPUI mentions. If this were an article name that people would look for, I'd say Redirect, but I don't think that it is. Delete. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- Alterego is wrong, in that deleting this article has nothing whatever to do with removing the WikiMedia project. Actually, you're wrong. As you can clearly see from reading the discussions above, it's a good first step. Additionally, you're more wrong than that. Wikispecies is a redirect to Wikimedia, a perfect place on Wikipedia for including short blurbs about the foundation's various aspirations and projects in an encyclopedic context. Just to rub it in how wrong you are, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikinews all have dedicated articles. Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11's existence relies simply in the virtue of whether or not the project's existence is well founded. If the project should be archived, as Angela suggests, then the article should not exist. However, if it is indeed found to be a neutral and existence worthy project then the standard of having articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects at Wikipedia should also be applied to the 9/11 article. Hence my comment: I vote in favor of deleting (or archiving, in the form of only making the database dump available) the entire project. As the merit of the existence of one is reliant on the other, a decision must be made that considers them hand in hand. It clearly calls for a further vote. And irrespective of any of these points, you were clearly wrong before beginning with, because. --Alterego 22:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - It's not any sort of "first step" at all. It has nothing whatever to do with the process of deleting the project, which you still incorrectly seem to think is predicated upon the existence of an encyclopaedia article and vice versa, despite Hedley's outright example to the contrary. I say again: Wikipedia is not Meta.. Moreover: The "standard of having articles on Wikimedia Foundation projects" should be the standard for having articles on anyone else's MediaWiki projects. Finally: Which part of "separate article" was unclear? Uncle G 03:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
    - Some folks think they can get away with saying "no, that's not the case, and the reason it's not the case is that your thinking is incorrect". That's not reasoning, it's fallacy. --Alterego
      - Funny, I thought you were making that line of reasoning. My bad. --SPUI (talk) 05:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        You thought wrong ;) --Alterego 16:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with Angela. JamesBurns 09:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable enough. Grue 11:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How you you come up with that? --SPUI (talk) 13:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 14:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grayson Walker

Vanity page created by User:Agwiii, a User:RexJudicata sockpuppet, about himself. this person is ~~utterly~~ unnotable, and should be deleted for that reason SqueakBox 20:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Parents Without Rights. He's not utterly nonnotable, but he isn't notable enough to get his own article. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or userfy any article in the main namespace created by its subject. If someone is truly notable, let someone else create an article. Jonathunder 18:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Strong Delete, per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is simply more cyberharassment by SqueakBox who is on a vendetta. Don't be fooled by him and led into his vendetta. He continues to make false claims and spreads lies after being told by an International Anti-Harassment organization that he is a Cyber Stalker and Harasser. Rex Judicata 12:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Retain Ignore this VFD because it is based upon the personal vendetta of SqueakBox. I am Rex Judicata and I am not Agwiii. This is just one of the lies being spread by SqueakBox about me. He is a Wikipedia pest and troll. The rule is, "don't feed the trolls." Furthermore, I am a member of Parents Without Rights and have met Dr. Walker. I suggest before you decide that his work for children and families in America is not "notable," you should visit the Parents Without Rights website at www.ParentsWithoutRights.org and join the discussion group on Yahoogroups. If you base your decision upon facts and not the harassment of SqueakBox, you'll see through SqueakBox and leave this page alone. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexJudicata (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This Vfd should have been terminated a week ago, please do so now, SqueakBox 13:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cyberstalking, Harassment, & Dog Posting by SqueakBox

SqueakBox follows me around Wikipedia and vandalizes anything I touch. He tells the lie that I, Rex Judicata, am also Agwiii and has posted this lie in several places. I simply delete the lie. However, the very nature of Wikipedia encourages the behavior of people like SqueakBox. He claims to be a deletionist, but is actually an obsessionist and Cyberstalker.

Law enforcement on the Internet is a challenge for all countries, but we have seen some dramatic events with creators of denial of service, virus, spam, etc. being brought to justice. I am a resident of Florida, and have been an Internet Safety Activist for years.

I have worked to help the passage of Florida 2003 Cyberstalking Law. Those administrators who believe in Wikipedia should question why behavior that is outlawed by Florida (and many other states and countries) would be condoned by Wikipedia. I suggest that this is the case - that Wikipedia allows cyberstalking, harassment and dog posting -- and that it is time for Wikipedia to change.

Questions and comments? Email me at RexJudicata@gmail.com

Signed proudly and accurately by Rex Judicata 13:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yoyu are not allowed to delete accusations of sockpuppetry against yourself. It was anopther use, not me, who first reached that conclusion, SqueakBox 13:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting comments from Vfd, as you have just done RexJudicata, is considered vandalism and may result in your being blocked, SqueakBox 14:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cooperative Web Services

An article about a protocol implementation that hasn't been released yet. Also, the fact that it has been written by the creator of the thing and his explicit saying that it is his thesis makes me think about vanity. Sarg 20:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed - the fact he links to his own user page suggests vanity. It's self-promotion, and (certainly at present) an unnotable technology. UkPaolo 21:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Among many other things it is not, Wikipedia is not the IETF. ----Isaac R 00:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I'm the author of the page) Hi all, I'm a newcomer to wikipedia editing, I've read the guide for votes for deletion and I would like to enter into the discussion. Sarg said that the subject of the article is a "protocol implementation that hasn't been released yet". I think it isn't right. CooWS is an implementation of an agent based model. CooWS is an application framework. It doesn't specify any new protocol (even if it uses a lot of common standards among web services world). And it's false that CooWS hasn't been released yet. Even if there isn't any "stable" release, from the project homepage the beta build can be downloaded and tested. The code is 90% mature and the first stable build will be released in the next months. (I'm currently writing the docs and I've thougth that my contribution to wikipedia at this stage would have been less time consuming). Finally, on the last Sarg's comment, yes the application is written by the author's page but the explicit cite on my thesis would have been the start for an "history/origins section". UKPaolo says that the technology is "unnotable". The main subjects of this work are Web Services, agents software and semantic web. I think that, at present, all these technologies are receiving a big attention from the academic and industry world. I think Isaac R makes the same misunderstanding of Sarg. Wikipedia is not IETF, this is right, like CooWS is not a proposal for a new standard. Thanks for your time spending. ----Luigi Bozzo 10:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Luigi, thanks for your detailed comments. Sorry about the confusion about the use of the word "protocol" (never use protocol when it's 2 o'clock on the morning...). However, I stand by my points about notability. It is clear that agent based models are notable, as well as many of the technologies mentioned. That's why I haven't nominated agent based model or Java programming language for deletion. However, your project is not known enough / used by enough people / notable. It might be in the future, but it is my opinion that this isn't the case now. Sarg 14:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with Sarg, I'm afraid, Luigi, though many thanks for posting your comments. I still consider the page to be self-promotion, however, surely any true encyclopedic article wouldn't include linking to your userpage. That appears to be vanity. As Sarg said, for the time being your project is simply not sufficiently widely used to be considered notable. I consider it's entry self promotion, and stick with my delete vote. UkPaolo 16:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. In general, software referenced only on the creator's web pages is not notable. As a bare minimum, it should be discussed by someone other than the person or group that wrote it and is promoting it. No evidence that this has generated much interest yet. Quale 18:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (I'm the author of the page!!!!) Thank you guys! I've learned something new about wikipedia. Now I can understand. My page was very_very_very off topic for an encyclopedic article. Please remove immediately the page (and the image that I've uploaded!!!). ----Luigi Bozzo 08:13, 01 June 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brendan Boyle

Obvious self promotion, vanity. UkPaolo 21:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Kappa 21:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Kappa. - DS1953 00:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. - Etacar11 00:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 10:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity indeed. HotRat 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete either a vanity page or some sort of joke. MadCopyEditor 14:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Casey Viator

Of no importance, an unnotable person. UkPaolo 21:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being the youngest ever ~~Mr. Universe~~ Mr. America makes him notable. Kappa 21:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, information is false. He was Mr. America, not Mr. Universe. See his own web page bio at http://www.caseyviator.com/casey.html. Rick K 22:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- You know what? I've changed my mind. I've long held that we should have an article on every Miss America and Miss Universe, so why not one on every Mr. America and Mr. Universe? Keep. RickK 19:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - thank you but this person is not just any mr. america he is the youngest person to ever be one Yuckfoo 21:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not quite notable. --Sn0wflake 23:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please as per kappa Yuckfoo 16:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with Rick. JamesBurns 09:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who has changed his mind. Keep I have no interest in bodybuilding (I arrived here via sport requested articles where his name caught my eye), but he is clearly significant in his field. Osomec 04:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. doesn't seem vastly notable, but gets about 4000 google hits, and article does assert some BB significance. Alai 05:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cameron Jerome

Certainly not npov, despite true. Doesnt merit article, at least unless someone adds vaguely decent content. UkPaolo 21:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Kel-nage 21:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plays for Cardiff City. Kappa 21:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: yes, the article is true (as I said above), and I see that you have wikified it for a npov. I'm still not convinced this person needs a unique article, however, since he is listed on the Cardiff City page. Why does Cameron Jerome require a seperate article, and yet barely any of the other players do? He's no more notable than the others, and the article provides no further info. I'll be interested to see the overall consensus on this point, however. UkPaolo 21:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We could expand if it has little content. "Jerome is one of Cardiff's rising stars" - BBC --Chill Pill Bill 01:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. If there is something significant to say then let it be added to the article. Vegaswikian 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this too please Yuckfoo 16:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete There's a new link, just appeared, to him from the Huddersfield article, I've lived in Huddersfield for 52 years and never heard of him.Richard Harvey 18:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The madonnas

I'm not sure this group passes the WP:music guidelines. A google search has returned 20 hits, all in Finnish. As far as I've seen there, it is a high school band. Sarg 21:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yep, agreed. delete UkPaolo 21:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expand and move to The Madonnas. Some notability. JamesBurns 09:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete can't see anything notable about them. Grue 11:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spiderworld

Certainly not notable now, although I wish them luck. For the time being, this is simple vanity. Sarg 21:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable. DJ Clayworth 19:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Some notability. JamesBurns 09:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bring it back if it gets real notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:21, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep. Notability present and rising. Voskat 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (CET +1)

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, and was eliminated as such already as a copyvio. Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helpargentina

I'm aware that Argentina has had trouble lately, but this is not the place to advertise charities. Gazpacho 21:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted as a copyright violation after the listing period on WP:CP.--Duk 23:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertising --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. Megan1967 10:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:21, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SLIPR

Well, if it can't be distributed in Wikipedia, then it won't! Sorry! It seems Marcus has created an account, but I'd be happier if he created some valuable articles instead of insisting on vanity... Sarg 21:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete... vanity UkPaolo 21:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity. WP is not a crytal ball --Xcali 23:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete if it's not going to be tested until June then it's prognostication. RJFJR 00:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Never-used software (which, moreover, is apparently too secret for Wikipedia) created by the same person as the never-used language Interslurf. Delete. Uncle G 04:34, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Morning Glory (webcomic)

Non-notable webcomic. Does not meet guidelines for inclusion (fewer than 100 strips). Google for "Morning Glory" webcomic gets no relevant hits (although it does bring up another webcomic called "Morning Glory", which seems to be a broken Angelfire page). Alexa test is inapplicable, as it does not have a domain of its own. — Gwalla | Talk 22:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Sn0wflake 23:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only a few comics away from 100 anyway. 80.3.0.42 10:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note - above IP actually has several hundred contributions (although we don't know if it's all the same person). -- BD2412 ^talk 03:23, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  - It's the British ISP NTL's transparent proxy. 80.3.0.42 21:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, by the way - not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:23, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 14:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2008 Democratic National Convention

For the parallel VFD discussion of 2008 Republican National Convention, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2008 Republican National Convention.

Speculation. crystal ball, yadda yadda. Rick K 22:30, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, I find the article to be of some interest, despite the fact that it is speculative. --Sn0wflake 23:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Crystal Ball rule actually allows for articles like this, so long as it is not original research. 23skidoo 01:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you somehow have knowledge that the 2008 Democratic National Convention will not occur as planned. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:56, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Keep, but I can't find an article for the winners' convention. I mean the 2008 Republican National Convention. :) NeoJustin 03:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable convention. Klonimus 07:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the 2008 Democratic National Convention's existence is a sure thing, a little more than three years away,and this article will get more and more definitive as time goes on. Let anyone who is interested start an entry on the Republican or third party conventions. ((User: Zulitz)), 11:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete but let redlinks stay. This is my first time voting for deleting a page so here goes. Although there will be a convention, there is no information at this time about the 2008 DNC; it is too early, we don't know the speakers, the venue or city. Although there are rumors and preparations, I believe it is inappropriate to write a page for a nominating convention when we have no nominee or even candidates - no Democratic candidate has officially announced running. In addition, the lack of a 2008 RNC page shows it is too early to write a page for the conventions anyway. Plus, the current page appears to be a copy of (old) speculation from the election page. I recommend this page be restarted from scratch in the future (say, after the 2006 midterms) but I am open to compromise. --Blue387 05:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But I suggest we do a complete rewrite, similar to the first version of Super Bowl XLIV [12]. We know that the event will occur in June 2008, thus the Crystal Ball rule should allow this. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely. Despite the crystal ball argument, this is somewhat well-founded speculation. Sjakkalle 07:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until firm and verifiable details on the convention are released, this is speculation and opinion.--Alabamaboy 03:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into U.S. presidential election, 2008. This is speculation about possible candidates for the election, not the convention itself, much of which is already duplicated in the election article. Unlike 2008 Republican National Convention, this article contains sound speculation about the candidates. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Android79 said exactly what I was going to say. This is duplicates the 2008 election article and will just create confusion. DS1953 02:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. This ardent Democrat notes that political conventions are given examples of exceptions to crystal ball policy. This important, certain future event is already being discussed, and discussion will not abate. Xoloz 06:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speculation. I understand that there is usually an exception for political conventions, but this is so far out there to be outside the exception, in my opinion. Wait until either the convention is formally announced, or someone actually declares candidacy. --bainer (talk) 09:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per android. - StopTheFiling June 2 2005
Merge per the droid. — Phil Welch 23:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Provided people are warned that content is necessarily of a speculative nature I think this article should stay, see Template:Future. John Cross 16:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, same reasons I gave for keeping the 2008 Republican National Convention. Falphin 21:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robert Eads

Entire text reads:Robert Eads had ovarian cancer, but doctors refused to treat him because they did not want their female patients to feel uncomfortable with a transsexual man in the waiting room. He died. Only one page Transman links there and I have added "died of ovarian cancer" to Eads' name on that page; rest is POV - DS1953 22:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Subject of the Academy-Award nominated and Sundance Grand Jury Prize-winning documentary film Southern Comfort. Rick K 22:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand per RickK, and de-POV if necessary. 23skidoo 01:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable character in prize winning Southern Comfort. Megan1967 10:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per RickK. JamesBurns 09:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand per RickK. Axon 11:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand per RickK. AlexR 11:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done a short rewrite. We don't have an article on the film. Do they need separate articles? Secretlondon 23:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article was deleted at 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 by Duk ({{copyvio}}). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oceaneering

First-person advertising. Rick K 23:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

deleted after listing on WP:CP--Duk 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

speedy --Xcali 23:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even advertising (no link, no hint of where they're located) it's just lame. I agree it deserves to go away quickly, but we do have rules. ----Isaac R 00:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad attempt at vanity/advertising. - Etacar11 00:52, 31 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chauncey Peppertooth

One of a few Case Western Reserve University band whose umbrella article, Case Western Reserve music scene, was recently deleted after this VfD. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines#College_bands.2Fgroups_and_notability. This is not a vote, just a listing so they don't fall through the cracks after the music scene VfD. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you might also wish to look at [13]. It's a direct copy of that page - possible copyvio. Megan1967 10:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spamguy 05:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zugzwang (band)

One of a few Case Western Reserve University band whose umbrella article, Case Western Reserve music scene, was recently deleted after this VfD. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines#College_bands.2Fgroups_and_notability. This is not a vote, just a listing so they don't fall through the cracks after the music scene VfD. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet wikipedia guidelines. No allmusic.com or albums. Megan1967 10:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:41, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speakeasy (a capella group)

One of a few Case Western Reserve University band whose umbrella article, Case Western Reserve music scene, was recently deleted after this VfD. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines#College_bands.2Fgroups_and_notability. This is not a vote, just a listing so they don't fall through the cracks after the music scene VfD. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet wikipedia guidelines. No allmusic.com entry. Megan1967 10:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Minimum Requirements

One of a few Case Western Reserve University band whose umbrella article, Case Western Reserve music scene, was recently deleted after this VfD. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines#College_bands.2Fgroups_and_notability. This is not a vote, just a listing so they don't fall through the cracks after the music scene VfD. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you might want to look at this website [14]. The article copies the first paragraph - possible copyvio. No allmusic.com. Fails to establish notability. Megan1967 10:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:41, 2005 Jun 4 (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?) 03:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simple Reason

Band vanity. Not notable. Xcali 23:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted after listing on WP:CP--Duk 05:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Keep this article. The band is a signed band with a large local following. Article created by a fan unrelated to the band, considered of interest to at least the residents of Bucks. Not vanity. Tamias 00:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to meet any one criterion in WP:MUSIC. Delete without prejudice against recreation when they do. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC.—Wahoofive (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet wikipedia music guidelines. No allmusic.com entry. Megan1967 10:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armchair Position

This page has returned --Bedel23 July 4, 2005 07:21 (UTC)

I've changed the template to {{deleteagain}}. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Too bad this kind of rubbish is not speedy deletable. Not that I'm a prude - it's that the writing is so pathetic. Denni ☯ 23:34, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Cleanup or Delete and let the redlink in list of sex positions stand. Uncle G 04:27, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Cleanup or Delete as per Uncle G. There could one day be a good article there but this isn't it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopaedic as is. Megan1967 10:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned it up a little to make it more encyclopaedic, please re-vote. (Anonymous) 22:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete for above reasons. Vegaswikian 05:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not an encyclopedia article. JamesBurns 09:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ivo cedrick tonk

Vanity. Not notable. Xcali 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. 13 years old AND he was born this year... - Etacar11 00:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 10:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter nonsense. No Account 21:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 22:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crypt Fiend

Wikipedia is not a game guide, for individual units in games. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the article, ScrewedThePooch (talk · contribs), is removing the VfD tag from this article. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Talrias, but without prejudice to ScrewedThePooch in rgds Do Not Bite The N00bs. Marblespire 00:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete. My comment was not meant as a slight on User:ScrewedThePooch, just to ensure that the VfD notice remains in place. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 00:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Crypt Fiends are also an undead creature from D&D, but they still aren't notable. -Sean Curtin 03:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neither units from Warcraft III nor monsters that appear only in supplementary Monster Manuals are encyclopedic. A Man In Black 05:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you're right, they're not particularly notable, but plenty of Wikipedia articles detail things which dont seem all that notable - I personally couldn't care less about all the pointless Pokemon pages. Article is a well written stub, could be expanded in future. Not encyclopedic in the traditional sense, maybe, but I see no reason to delete. UkPaolo 11:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the Pokemon as individual articles is quite controversial; take a look at Wikipedia:Poképrosal if you want to know more. A Man In Black 00:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge somewhere, and fix capitalization. R adiant _* 13:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge content to Undead Scourge; the D&D crypt fiend probably doesn't deserve its own page, either. Nateji77 13:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nateji77 — RJH 19:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Undead Scourge or Nerubian ScrewedThePooch
Delete - not notable A curate's egg 19:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Undead Scourge. JamesBurns 09:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Loose rooster

Hoax. Zero google hits for Dick De Marge or Dick DeMarge. Rick K 23:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

delete --Xcali 00:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale, please? Pravoka 00:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. The entire article is a work of fiction. Xcali 02:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see some google cached references to Loose Rooster, although it may not be the same thing. If it's a hoax, it's an elaborate one. Why not ask the author of this article for some more references to back it up? Pravoka 00:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Thundergroin Invitational"? Oh, please. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:54, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Delete. Believe it or not Randy Thundergroin appears to be for real, but even giving the author the benefit of the doubt on the fact vs. fiction question, I don't think winning local disco dancing competitions meets the notability test for an individual. - DS1953 02:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. The "official" external link goes to some guy's blog hosted on Blogspot, which appears to be about rugby rather than disco; in fact, the word disco does not appear once on the blog's first page of posts. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 02:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Megan1967 10:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, made me chuckle though. - Jersyko talk 12:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
delete please because this is a hoax Yuckfoo 16:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality in older age

I added the VFD tag because i think this is supposed to be a joke. Is there something to this? please delete unless there is actual valuable content. freestylefrappe 06:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 13:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and keep i think the author might have followed a red link from Human sexuality and written a stub, as opposed to having made a joke. Nateji77
Keep. I agree with Nateji77. I just added some links on the subject matter to help anyone who can clean this up. DS1953 14:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Can't imagine how this ended up on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Human sexual behaviour ~~~~ 17:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep'Vorash 19:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Interesting. JamesBurns 03:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean/up expand. I'm sure this topic has potential for an encyclopedia article. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the topic has potential, the current content doesn't however. --W(t) 08:41, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep -- and expand / cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 08:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, its notable and deserving of an article -CunningLinguist 23:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rename, title is ambiguous (could refer to old people, or earlier periods in history?) R adiant _* 10:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This page is listed on Template:Sexuality so it it is to be removed or renamed that template should be amended (or abandoned and merged into Human sexuality or Human sexual behavior — those three seem rather confused.). I agree that the name is ambiguous and a rename could be useful but the topic no doubt has some potential. --Douglas 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep if it's totally re-written - current content borders on BJODN. Blackcats 07:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do edit this page.