Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:19, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Serafitia

[edit]

Hoax, original research, insult page, trollery, take your pick. Google test shows no use of the term in the way the author claims; the nick "Serafitia" is in use on various forums, however; suspect insult page. Unverified and IMO unverifiable. Delete. JRM 00:31, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Delete-Clipdude 01:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete certainly interesting, and I suspect true in many cases as well, but an encyclopedia just isn't the place for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, it looks like an insult page, or at the very least, a neologism. foobaz·✐ 02:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An overblown analysis of some Web term or nickname or whatever. Wikipedia is not a Web guide. Delete. --Slowking Man 02:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, My head hurts. Inter 11:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete silliness. There may be an article hiding in some of this on a more general topic, and I would welcome it, but this looks like an attack on an individual. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Rhobite 05:52, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 07:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously an insult page, as links given at the bottom go to forum threads insulting someone of the same name. Redbox86

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no 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. Joyous 04:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comodephobia

[edit]

Dictdef, but I doubt wiktionary wants such a neologism, so delete. --fvw* 00:45, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Looks like a copyvio, to me, but zero Google hits for the word, let alone this definition. Non-notable phobia, nonsense. Delete. RickK 00:46, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um... There are two 'M's in the word for godsake! I say, don't delete what you cant spell. Keep it. The_Lord_of_Hosts 20:09, Jan 19, 2005 (EST) (24.225.171.12, also the author of the article.-Clipdude 01:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC))
The page title has only one 'M'. Another reason to delete.-Clipdude 01:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictdef, neologism.-Clipdude 01:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologistic dict-def. — Pt (T) 01:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 03:18, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one can not deny ones responsibility to protect the fragile moral fiber of the common man, this mind warping rubbish must be censored of my internet at once! (81.15.106.27 contributed this.-Clipdude 17:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 21:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Trenchant --155.33.124.212 01:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionary definition with not enough information on the subject. --Alif 01:08, 30 Jan 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.

for previous AfD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Madras/old

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. This had already been transwiki'd. See [[1]]. Rossami (talk) 23:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chicken Madras

[edit]

While it sounds very nice; yet another recipe to transwiki to the cookbook.. Sc147 00:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, trivial, doesnt belong here. Megan1967 02:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Kappa 03:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know where the discussion went, and why the other edits don't show up in the history, but I found "Chicken Madras --> Wikibooks. Gentgeen 11:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)"here, and " 03:05, 25 Apr 2004 Cecropia deleted "Chicken Madras" (deleted per consensus; now in cookbook)" here (I was having major deja vu). Niteowlneils 03:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikicookbook Gazpacho 02:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in Wikipedia, consider as a stub and improve the article. We should not delete stub, that prevent them from growing. SweetLittleFluffyThing
    • It's a recipe. It doesn't belong in the main encyclopaedia. Has very little potential for growth. Megan1967 22:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki recipe, Keep stub article. -CunningLinguist 12:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki; why should one keep the stub? Lectonar 13:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete - a recipe alone is not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:01, 24 Jan 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. Joyous 04:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Slubbing

[edit]

Dictdef, neologism. --fvw* 00:56, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Delete. Clym 00:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, nonsense. RickK 01:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to Merriam-Webster, "slub" is a transitive verb meaning "to draw out and twist (as slivers of wool) slightly". It also lists the noun "slubbing" as a synonym for "roving". Needless to say, this article has nothing to do with either. JRM 01:03, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree completely with the previous explanations. — Pt (T) 01:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slubbing is a word [2] [3] --sp00n17 01:35, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, it is, as I just pointed out. Confounding is also a word. We have no article on confounding or confound because wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you think you can write an encyclopedic article on "drawing out and twisting slivers of wool", please do so. JRM 01:51, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --Slowking Man 02:14, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly delete. - Vague | Rant 02:19, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 21:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 02:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scott Hughes

[edit]

Insultcruft. --fvw* 01:01, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Agree strongly, delete. Clym 01:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, insult page. From the talk page: "This is a stub, but more content, that readers will surely enjoy, is forthcoming." No, I think not. JRM 01:08, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Inter 12:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedy. Gtabary 17:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think speedy. Any reason against? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Neutralitytalk 22:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Brookie

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

43 Things

[edit]

Advertising. Nonnotable website started at the beginning of this year. Indrian 01:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete adcruft. —Korath (Talk) 08:16, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, We aren't a web page information center. Inter 12:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks to me like webspam. Gtabary 17:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the ad. --Spangineer ∞ 21:18, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Ad. -12:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Change it from being an Ad, but keep.
  • Keep - its info otherwise hard to obtain.
  • Delete This ad. They can make the link under "folksonomy" an external redirect for anyone who "must find" this new website. --Bjorng 16:18, 28 Jan 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. Joyous 04:34, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Vicious Arts

[edit]

Not notable. --fvw* 01:22, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • They're so memorable they surely don't need an article about them. Delete Clym 01:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See these two google caches for the games named in the article - they were built with game-building programs. —Korath (Talk) 07:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Would I say. Inter 12:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adv. Gtabary 17:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh3736 23:12, 25 Jan 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. Joyous 04:35, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Richy Arnold

[edit]

Not notable. --fvw* 01:22, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • That's an understatement. Delete - Clym 01:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See these two google caches for the games named in the Vicious Arts article, also up for deletion - they were built with game-building programs. —Korath (Talk) 07:40, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Spangineer ∞ 21:21, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the author didn't try very hard with this did he? Brookie

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no 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. Joyous 04:35, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Derelict

[edit]

dicdef. Sc147 01:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd say Transwiki to Wiktionary, but this is copied verbatim from the 1913 Webster's, and if I'm not mistaken, Wiktionary has explicit policies against parroting other dictionaries, even if they're PD. (Furthermore, it lists the legal definition in Webster's, see here.) JRM 01:38, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 02:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jipo

[edit]

Can't find any reference to this anywhere. non-notable Nonsense. Sc147 02:02, 19 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. Completed. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lalaland

[edit]

neol. dicdef. (btw, there seems to be quite a rich vein of articles that need cleanup, deletion, etc at Special:Deadendpages, hence my several vfd entries tonight). Sc147 02:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, dictionary definition, neologism. Megan1967 02:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been familiar with this expression for nearly 4 decades so it cannot be considered a neologism. Can easily form the basis of a good article. Keep. --Centauri 06:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Not a neologism, but still a dictdef. I don't see how it could turn into anything encyclopedic, though I'm open to convincing. —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • But merge with la-la land first, and send them both (as the latter). —Korath (Talk) 06:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to la-la land. Grue 19:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If kept, lalaland (~41,200 Google hits) should really be merged into la-la land (~202,000), not from it. —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I changed my vote. Grue 07:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/tranwiki both if not expanded, but if kept, I think a better title is La-la Land or La-La Land, as it's a place, in theory, though not an existing one. -R. fiend 04:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikidictionary. -CunningLinguist 12:36, 24 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Closet design

[edit]

I'm not sure what this is, but it's not an encyclopaedia article. --fvw* 02:41, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsensical K1Bond007 02:56, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh, transwiki to, eh, Wikibooks? Eh. Delete. JRM 02:57, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an obscure how-to. I don't think it's worth the effort to transwiki. —Korath (Talk) 07:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't have time to stand in a closet for days. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:14, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic. --Spangineer ∞ 21:24, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and let's not insult Wikibooks by trying to foist this garbage on them. Szyslak 09:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - What the hell is this --Irishpunktom\talk 23:51, Jan 24, 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. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gulzari Lal Moorani

[edit]

Apparent attempt to find out about somebody. Searching Google gives no results. I wish it was possible to speedy this sort of thing. --Carnildo 05:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Teetering on the edge of the shiny new correspondence CSD category. —Korath (Talk) 07:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it is a CSD, but it is definately close to the edge. Let's VfD it just for fun, delete. --fvw* 15:58, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • Comment: The author has commented on the VfD talk page that they are going to improve the article in the next few days. --Carnildo 20:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not a missing persons BBS. Megan1967 23:39, 19 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 23:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fonkadelic

[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me, either, nor to Google (19 hits for fonkadelic+club, 15 for fonkadelic+dirty+hot+wet). —Korath (Talk) 07:25, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -CunningLinguist 12:37, 24 Jan 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. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frolk

[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Article is pure advertising anyhow. Xezbeth 06:44, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Clean up. I suggest: Decide considering the best rated poll option, decision to be valid until this or another poll type (ex.undelete poll) says otherwise, min_voters 5 in 1 day Iasson 08:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please discuss Vfd policy on talk or elsewhere. Further out of process comments of this kind on the main VfD page will be deleted. sjorford 22:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Vfd policy does not define the decision rule to be followed in order to extract the result , so I think I am allowed to suggest one until Vfd policy clearly defines a rule. In the other hand Vfd policy prohibits the deletion of votes. You have just deleted my vote, so you are against policy. Please dont do it again. Thank you Iasson 07:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a self-published band, so non-notable. --Carnildo 08:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, looks like an advertisement copied and pasted from elsewhere. Megan1967 23:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. PMC 07:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. dbenbenn | talk 04:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:56, Jan 24, 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Friend computer

[edit]

A character from what I believe is a text-based rpg. The game doesn't even have an article. Xezbeth 06:46, Jan 19, 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 on 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. Rossami (talk) 23:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gekitou

[edit]

A roleplaying forum. Advertising/non-encyclopedic. Xezbeth 06:54, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 89 members. "Most users ever online was 32 on 07-16-2003 at 02:11 PM." —Korath (Talk) 07:15, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable -- Hoary 03:01, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 22:48, 24 Jan 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. PoccilScript 02:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of religious leaders in 1741

[edit]

This is not what it purports to be, (a list) but a single entry. I don't see any reason to have a list of religious leaders from each year in history, so I believe this page is unecessary. ÅrУnT†∈ 02:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I think if we had an actual list like this, it would be great. Even if this was the only year we covered, it'd be good. Unfortunately this is rather weak. The originator of the article could at least have named the pope at the time. I suppose I'll go and do that. Marginal keep, just to encourage the creation of a real list. Everyking 08:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You make a point, but I think a page for every year is excessive. by century, or even by decade would constitute more of an actual list since religious leaders are often the same for many years. Perhaps a change to List of religious leaders in the 1700s or 1740s would be appropriate? Awaiting concensus. ÅrУnT†∈ 08:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, no need to make a list entry for every single year. I think one for the 1700s and so on with sections for each decade would suffice. Mgm|(talk) 08:48, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that might be better; perhaps start out with centuries and then move to individual articles on decades if the list really fills up. Everyking 08:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of the project, and as long as the article is expanded I withdraw my original objection to the page. keep ÅrУnT†∈ 23:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe by century first and split later on ? Gtabary 17:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let it grow. Rmhermen 17:51, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not isolated, but part of a project. Samaritan 20:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, cumbersome. If allowed this would set a precedent of allowing religious leaders for every year to be created and I dont think that is either practical nor necessary, even State leaders by year was a bad idea to begin with. What's wrong with simply having just a List of religious leaders? Unlike state leaders, religious leaders aren't in and out of power that often, so many years would be repetitive. Megan1967 23:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now, but as nominated it was a delete. I've formatted it as specified by the wikiproject and removed Edwards, who shouldn't have been on the list. Now it's back to having a single name, but hopefully it will grow. This project has been languishing of late. -R. fiend 23:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - part of a project. I suspect there are better places to discuss the merits of a project. --JuntungWu 01:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Extremely useful. Ambi 01:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge by different sort. I'll go against the crowd here and say theres no reason for something like this sorted by year. By decade, alright, but having one year out of the entire eighteenth century and it having only one entry seems pretty useless and the other pages by year are just as bare. I agree with Megan above, religious leaders tend to stick around for much longer periods. K1Bond007 07:52, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems dumb. What is notable about the state of world-wide religion in 1741 that we need a list of the religious leaders in that particular year. Even dumber would be to add a few thousand articles to the Wikipedia with the list of religious leaders in each year. The list for Y would generally be nearly identical, if not actually identical, to Y-1, because religions don't change their leaders frequently. Anyway, why would anyone ever need/want to know who all the religious leaders in the world were in a particular year. Lists like this just make Wikipedia seem stupid, and diminish its authority. In one of Jorge Borges' stories, there is a hilarious list of "lists", including Objects that from a long way off look like flies. I'm expecting to see that as an article on Wikipedia any day now. --BM 13:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've come to think it could be a good point of reference if one was doing research on religion, but yes, a list for every year does seem excessive. ÅrУnT†∈ 22:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 11:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notice how the article has grown froma small start to a larger and more complete version? Articles in Wikipedia do that, provided they aren't deleted each time they start small. Bryan 22:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Neutralitytalk 22:36, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. At first blush, tracking religious or political leaders by year over a period of many centuries seems like vast overkill, but people have actually been obsessive-compulsive enough to do it pretty thoroughly for the heads of state/government, so why not for religious leaders as well? Dtobias 15:51, 24 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 02:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kash Jaffrey

[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Google returns zero hits. --Carnildo 09:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same article has appeared, and was flagged and deleted as a speedy deletion candidate. Sysops can click here. For other users, the content was: "{{delete}}One of the most prominent Calgary, Canada based financial speculator." It was deleted twice, by User:Zoicon5 and User:CryptoDerk (cryptoderk deleted the same thing, except it didn't have the SDC tag).
  • delete, hasnt this been on here before?--Boothy443 10:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Appears to be non notable. (FYI: Annon rmed several times vf notice.) Gtabary 11:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Inter 12:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 13:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity (constant removal of VfD notice). Megan1967 23:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero Google hits is incompatible with "prominent", so vanity or hoax. -- Curps 21:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep speedying. Some people just don't get it. —Korath (Talk) 08:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    It's arguable that the earlier speedys were out-of-process -- CSD doesn't provide for speedy-deletion of vanity articles. However, once it goes through VfD, speedy deletion will be justified because it'll be a re-creation of a VfD'd article. --Carnildo 09:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Ah. I read Boothy443's comment as "It's been on VfD before." Plain old delete then. —Korath (Talk) 10:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. jni 13:01, 23 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 02:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Diwant Vaidya

[edit]

As tragic as this may be...vanity Lectonar 10:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Um, I suspect "alive to witness" means in reality "watched them on TV". Delete. Dbiv 10:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 11:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • He both attended college and became successful and rich in this century? Delete stupid vanity. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:20, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Inter 12:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Goodness me, with all that he's done so far I'm hesitant, but... Delete the vanity. — Asbestos | Talk 13:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 13:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even though he was alive to witness events spanning almost THREE WHOLE YEARS! Wowie! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity -- Jmabel | Talk 22:02, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch 06:44, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • D Everyking 09:51, 20 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 02:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Garrett Gilmore

[edit]

Hoax. Zero hits (why did I bother?) for +"Garrett Gilmore" +"WHAT'S UP BITCH". Samaritan 11:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I wouldn't exactly call that a famous role, anyway. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:24, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, "Mommy, whats an Anal Beer Chugger?" But seriously. Inter 12:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I was already suspicious when I did the formatting *sigh*. With no info on IMDB, I'll vote delete. 131.211.210.157 13:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Above anon vote is mine. Mgm|(talk) 13:36, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy or Delete. Hoax. — Asbestos | Talk 13:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 13:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 00:03, 20 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 01:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ghost shit

[edit]

Created today and promptly given a vfd tag, which was not followed up on. Dictdef, and patently absurd (see "origin"). Why not transwiki? Because googling suggests the definition itself is all wrong. Samaritan 11:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Dictdef and it's non existant? Inter 13:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definition. Don't move this to Wictionary. --NoPetrol 01:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Made up dict. def. Do not transwiki. jni 17:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete straight out, same reasons as others above -CunningLinguist 12:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Why isn't thiis a speedy case? --Irishpunktom\talk]] 00:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Michael James Szymczyk

[edit]

Possible Speedy Delete candidate. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Szymczyk. Uncle G 13:40, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity, self-promotion user: mike1971inter] 14.43 2005 Jan 19 {UTC}
  • Delete This page was originally marked for speedy because it's already gone through vfd very recently as "Michael Szymczyk" (and he's been spamming various WP articles). Do we really need to send it through VFD again? --LeeHunter 17:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity indeed. Gtabary 17:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as previous VfD loser. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:33, 19 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Note: This decision should not be considered as a precedent against future articles about the event. This article is being deleted because it is overly specific to a single year and had too much of an advertising tone. No one came forward to clean up this article during the discussion period. Rossami (talk) 00:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contravision

[edit]

Advertisement for a past event. No encyclopedic content. --Kelly Martin 13:40, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Adv. Gtabary 17:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - Seems to be an anual thing.. keep, but cleanup--Irishpunktom\talk 00:06, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably the film festival should have an article, but this isn't it. (And there's nothing to salvage from this.) dbenbenn | talk 19:11, 25 Jan 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. Joyous 03:21, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Flamegrilled

[edit]

Oh no it isn't. Uncle G 15:54, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Delete. Joke. Gtabary 17:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is now. A hypothetical article about the cooking technique would probably be best at flame grilling, and this could redirect there. Samaritan 20:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Flame grilling. Article at present is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No need for article on that different subject is established, not even a red link elsewhere than on VfD pags. Deletion of this on is no barrier to creating the suggested redirect if & when such an article shows signs of encyclopedicity.
  • Del. Nonsense or idiosyncratic. --Jerzy(t) 02:27, 2005 Jan 24 (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 on 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. PoccilScript 02:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bachya ben Asher

[edit]

It is not obvious to me how the content is related to the title. And it doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Thue | talk 17:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or rewrite completly. That's the problem with things so hard to make sens of. A quick search on "Bachya ben Asher" +bible shows it could possibly be related. But as it stands the article is cryptic. Gtabary 17:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic single quote from the Bible. Apparently Rabbi ben Asher is a Torah commentator, but not IMO a very notable one. Article was created anonymously by 199.43.176.10 (next edit was page blanking of the Terry Fox article, previous edits were also mostly blankings and assorted vandalisms). Megan1967 00:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination. -R. fiend 06:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - eh? --Irishpunktom\talk 00:08, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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. PoccilScript 01:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Backaches

[edit]

Looks like a disguised ad (note the link to their soap store). Thue | talk 17:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article is not really about it's tile. And yes it does look like disguised adv. Gtabary 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad. - Jpo 01:11, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More crap. -R. fiend 06:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep Ad-Free too. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:09, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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. PoccilScript 02:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stranded

[edit]

Band of strictly local interest. Only released one EP and now disbanded. --LeeHunter 17:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gtabary 17:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. jni 17:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: there are plenty of movies that could be put here instead. Cburnett 22:46, 24 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 01:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tommy Tee

[edit]

Seams not yet notable. "Tommy Tee" +producer -> 667 hits. Gtabary 17:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep though his music isn't my cup of tee, uh, tea. He's been around since the 80s, has had several releases, remixes, etc. This article doesn't really reflect most of what he does though. I'll clean it up if nobody else does. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Seams" notable to me. GRider\talk 21:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 00:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please define "not notable enough" in this context. Especially now with Capitalistroadster's contributions, a vote for delete is a vote for senseless deletionism. GRider\talk
      • It's a little unfair attacking someones vote when the article itself has changed since the original vote, besides which that article still reads like a promo. Megan1967 01:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Vaguely notable. --JuntungWu 01:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure where else to report this, so here we go. Content currently reads The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Tommy Tee". If it is a recently changed page, trying again in a minute or two will usually work. Alternatively, you may have followed an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted. If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL. Not sure what that's all about, some sort of database bug? The history is still there, the talk page is empty. The edit tab seems normal but I'm afraid to edit it until this is sorted out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo. Btw I was able to view the page OK, so I guess the database is happy again. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 08:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This man has released the best selling Norwegian hip hop album ever. He has had singles released in the US featuring Talib Kweli and Pete Rock which have won a good critical reception. He has produced a debut record for Helen Eriksen who won a Norwegian Grammy. Tee has had a popular program on Norwegian radio for over 10 years and established a hip hop magazine. He has promoted concerts by Ice Cube, the Fugees, De La Soul and other notable artists. He established a hip hop magazine. Tommy Tee is notable both within the hip hop genre and the Scandinavian music industry. I have added all of this info to the article. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on what Capitalistroadster says above and has added to the article. / up+land 10:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it in wake of edits by Capitalistroadster. —RaD Man (talk) 05:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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. dbenbenn | talk 15:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 2 delete, 2 redirect, 1 keep. Since the deletes weren't in the majority, I've reinterpreted each "delete" as "delete or redirect".

Anglo-Welsh

[edit]

There's nothing here that isn't already said (in better fashion, too) at Wales, History of Wales, Welsh Marches, and Politics of the United Kingdom. And there's nothing here that cannot be merged into those articles. The main purpose of this article seems to be to attempt to establish the notability of The Sheep Shagger (q.v.) Uncle G 17:28, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • REdirect to England and Wales? Dunc|☺ 21:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or simply delete. Josh Cherry 02:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to something meaningful like Anglo-Welsh literature. It's only an adjective, and the definition here isn't even correct. (And by the way, I'm Welsh) Deb 18:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but change to something like "English-Welsh rivalry". It should not be merged into "England and Wales". The point of the latter is that "England and Wales" is an entity which is distinct from the rest of the UK in certain ways, most importantly in having a common legal system (Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own). Philip 04:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Del. Nothing worth merging; if worthwhile material on rivalry rises to significance that requires split from E&W, split it when it is no longer hypothetical. --Jerzy(t) 02:35, 2005 Jan 24 (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. This has been done. Joyous 03:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Sheep Shagger

[edit]

An undergraduate newspaper at a college is rarely notable. No evidence is supplied to indicate that this particular one is. At best this would be a note in Jesus College, Oxford. (And — Lo! — what do we find to be already at Jesus College, Oxford#The_Welsh_connection?) The epithet (calling it a "title" is somewhat of a misnomer) is hardly notable, either. It doesn't just apply to the Welsh. (I've heard it used of several agrarian communities.) And I doubt that an article on it could ever be significantly more than the relatively self-explanatory dictionary definition ("one who shags sheep"). Uncle G 17:33, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • To my mind, a printed newspaper in the English language (nothing ethnic there, just en. versus other namespaces, and major papers in other languages should absolutely be here) is real, hard and pretty likely to pass the notability bar - for campus media, at the very least for a merge and redirect. I was still about to vote delete as unverifiable, but by its correct name, The Sheepshagger, it checks out. Indeed, it's the newspaper of Jesus College, Oxford and is cited on three official college Admissions pages. The college is eminent but small, so borderline keep or strong redirect (there's nothing yet to merge) from The Sheepshagger to Jesus College, Oxford. Samaritan 19:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You didn't need to Google. I pointed out where it was mentioned in Jesus College, Oxford. As I said, my opinion was that it didn't warrant an article, merely a note in Jesus College, Oxford. And — Lo! — it already was a note in Jesus College, Oxford, before this article was even created. Uncle G 19:08, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
    • Incidentally: The Sheep Shagger refers to the newspaper as a Scandal Sheet. (Indeed, it refers to it as a Scandal Sheet.) Having been involved in such publications when I was at university (I'm actually using the same pseudonym here as I used to use all of those years ago.) I can assure you that they are not automatically notable, by a long chalk. (I offer as evidence for this the fact that no-one has come forward and said "I remember Uncle G! You're —".) Being intra-mural gossip, they do tend to fall foul of exception #6, being only of interest to a very small group: the other members of the college at the time. Uncle G 19:08, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
    • Here's an acid test: Does anyone, apart from the members of the college and their boyfriends/girlfriends, read the publication? Uncle G 20:19, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
    • We had a printed English language newspaper at my middle school. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Samaritan said. - Jpo 01:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 07:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Del. N-n. --Jerzy(t) 02:49, 2005 Jan 24 (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 on 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. PoccilScript 01:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ed's law

[edit]

Suspect neologism. Note created by User:Edgod. Rmhermen 17:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete Author admits to this offsite[4]Geni 17:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can even be a speedy under the patent nonsense criteria Glaurung 17:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sub-nonsense.
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice; stealth vanity. —Korath (Talk) 01:31, Jan 20, 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 on 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. PoccilScript 01:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

H. C. Fredriksen

[edit]

<moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English>

  • It's about an engineer. Scandinavian language, I think Danish. Sietse 15:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's Danish. Ливай | ☺ 19:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Danish, but nothing in it told me why he should merit an entry, even though he is refered to from Anglo-Dane. Looks to me like the text might come from some larger piece, e.g. a book. --hans 13:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<end moved comments>

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Simon Scarrow

[edit]

vanity. Uncle G 19:23, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jpo 01:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not much effort here! Brookie 20:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, but obviously also expand. According to his own web site [5] he is the author of five historical novels, translated to German, Spanish, Czech and Finnish. Hardly vanity. Alarm 21:06, 24 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 01:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johnubiprasad

[edit]

I am sorry!The supposed vandalism occured because I accidentally pressed the wrong button while trying to answer Frederik's comments.I ultimately ended up sending him a message.Please check every name that I have included like AP Mitra,Gopalan,Ramalingaswami,Narasimha,Menon,Seshadri and others.You would not find anything dubious.And google is a very poor guide to assess the importance of a scientist's work.I doubt you would find anything notable in the google if you search Yellapragada Subba Rao but he remains a giant(incidentally I included his name.)Google would not tell you much about JC Bose's prior discovery of wireless.He was an unassuming man.How many would know that Zuse was the discoverer of modern computers.And would it surprise wikipedians if I was to say the Television was patented in the 19th century.The discovere remains obscure.I obtained all this informaton from the reference I have cited.Incidentally the inventor of television is named there and I leave it to the wikipedians to find it out and see if he merits inclusion!I must admit I am partial to Ramalingaswami and Johnubi as they taught me and Johnubi's discovery that sodium valproate is a mood stabilizer when it was believed for over 50 years that lithium was the only option has benifitted someone close to me personally as it has done millions.Please go through the book and see for yourself if any of the 1000 named there are without any merit.I admit Johnubi is not as well known as he desrves because he gave up science at an early age after having published Biological Basis and therapy of neuroses again a masterpiece which established that neuroses also had a biological basis.I guess I have made the point.It is upto wikipedians to decide whether Johnubi,Zuse and yellapragad merit inclusion. Hi I am a Wikipedian and I had created the article on Johnubiprasad.It is ceratinly not anonymous!Let Frederik have his way but please check in the book if the information is correct beforw deciding to delete.Johnubi was my teacher as was Ramalingaswami whose page I was hoping to create along with Mriganka Sur's.My request is to check the information in the book before voting;should be easy enough!John Connolly,Canada

PS By the way it would not matter to Johnubi who has left science over 15 years ago.He is a recluse now.But I would expect objectivity from Wikipedians.

I have been through the book TOP 1000 SCIENTISTS FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME TO 2000 AD by Philip Barker.It is in the MIT Library where I am based.The name certainly does not seem familiar but it is there in the book.However,I think I would need to contact the author of the book for further details.Until such time,I suppose it may be a wise policy to exclude the name.Perhaps others might want to peruse the book themselves to see what they make of it.

    • The above edit was by 216.174.136.2, who has vandalized this page twice, is recreating the article under a variety of names, and is seeding the name all over Wikipedia. Non-notable. Delete. RickK 23:00, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

This person doesn't appear to be notable. Google agrees. Xezbeth 21:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Top 1000 book does seem real, but the presence of the author's comments in the reviews make this smell like self-promotional spam. - Jpo 01:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The anonymous writer of this article has made other dubious edits that might need attention. [[User:F
  • Ashoka Johnubiprasad has now been created. I have put a vfd tag on that as well, with a link to this discussion. Fredrik | talk 21:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:05, 24 Jan 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 on 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 3 merge, 0 delete, 0 keep.

Judging - Perceiving

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic? Xezbeth 21:03, Jan 19, 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 on 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. PoccilScript 01:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bruno Frey

[edit]

The CV link makes me suspect that this is vanity. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC

  • To the contrary, the CV suggests that he is a very distinguished contemporary economist (with two honorary doctorates), probably on of the most distinguished ones in his country. Obvious Keep. Martg76 23:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • He does seem to be pretty well-known based on Google results. I wasn't able to load the PDF to check (can't we link to the site from which the PDF is linked?). This was not at all obvious based on the text of the article I first saw; the current article looks much less suspicious. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It is still the same text, just wikified :-) I've changed the link to what you suggested. Martg76 02:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in my view. --JuntungWu 01:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • del. average professor. notability not seen. Mikkalai 08:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has published over a dozen books and 350 journal articles which is more than the average professor. Hope to flesh out the article in next day or so. Capitalistroadster 10:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Have now fleshed out the article. Frey is known within economic circles for his critique of Homo economicus and his writings on other forms of motivation. He was one of ten experts selected for the Copenhagen Consensus. As three of the other panellists hd won the Nobel Prize for Economics, it was a high powered panel. He has edited the Kyklos political ecoomy journal since 1969 nd has been a professor at Zurich since 1977. He is a Research Director at the Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts in Switzerland. If you consider the 12 books and over 350 articles this man has an international reputation as an economist. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as he's a full professor at a good university, with several books and over 350 journal publications to his name. Although professor appears to be one of the few positions we set some requirement for, if he was an actor or a member of a band it would appear he'd automatically get an article. Or a pokemon character of course. Appearing for ten seconds in a badly drawn Japanese cartoon is clearly so much more important than being an Economics professor in Zurich (where I suspect they take their economics pretty seriously). Average Earthman 16:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish sufficent notability. Gamaliel 16:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, still looks like possible vanity - note the article was created by a single edit from an anonymous user, and is that users only edit on Wikipedia. A CV alone does not establish ones notability. Megan1967 00:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Keep. Seriously, if a Research Director that has written more than a dozen books (translated into at least eight languages) and 350 journal articles, been the editor of a peer reviewed scientific journal for 35 years and holds two honorary doctorates is not notable enough for Wikipedia, we have some major deleting to do. Alarm 22:36, 24 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 00:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sir Brian Peter

[edit]

Speaks for itself, really. Vanity. Xezbeth 21:10, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete; first micronations, now micro-chivalric orders, whatever next? Dunc|☺ 21:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --JuntungWu 01:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete. Delete. Delete. RickK 08:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Curps 16:40, 20 Jan 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 on 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 list on WP:CP. This has been done. Joyous 03:08, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Myth of the Given

[edit]

This is either a copyright violation or a candidate for WikiSource, not an encylcopedia article. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:35, 19 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 00:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Da a

[edit]

Slang dicdef, added to which it makes no sense. sjorford 21:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 02:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Xezbeth 17:09, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on 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. Joyous 00:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

King Ho CHEUNG

[edit]

Nonnotable and vanity. May be an attempt to make a user page. Author is Kinghocheung. Indrian 17:12, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Moved to user page. --fvw* 18:03, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
    • article was moved to the user Kinghocheung page earlier but recreated by 210.245.138.116. self bio article. kaal 21:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh well, I tried. Delete. --fvw* 22:58, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Delete. ike9898 23:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.-gadfium 23:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is simply a resumé or CV. -- Curps 16:35, 20 Jan 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 on 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. Article deleted by Niteowlneils Joyous 03:06, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

No smoking inside rule, One cigarette rule

[edit]

These rules don't seem to be anything official, instead they're just rules that a group of friends or colleagues might make between themselves, in which case I can't see how they can be verifiable. sjorford 21:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there an article on tobacco smoking culture this could merge to?
  • Delete. non-notable in the extreme. --RoySmith 00:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, absurd. - Jpo 01:01, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this crud. Josh Cherry 02:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I like the One cigarette after sex rule bit. Wikikiwi 22:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-existant non-notable. Xtra 08:17, 21 Jan 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 on 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. Joyous 00:29, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Musgrave

[edit]

I am not notable enough for this. Paul Musgrave 22:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep but don't mind either way. --JuntungWu 01:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not a week keep, I'm a strong delete!--Paul Musgrave 01:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Why did you resign? Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  • Keep seems reasonably notable. 7,910 Google hits... and before anyone mentions it, I know there's more than one Paul Musgrave in the universe, but the first page at least was all this guy. Article shows further indication of notability, and it's neither a stub, POV, nor poorly-written. I say keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article doesn't establish notability. Martg76 02:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as requested. Gazpacho 02:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, but needs additional bio details eg date/place of birth.--Centauri 04:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: a talented young man on his way to great things. We'll have an article about him in a decade or two. Til then let's hold off. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 08:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • How did this article come into being, Paul? Who created it? Someone you know? If someone you don't know created it, to me that might suggest a degree of notability. Everyking 09:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • ... We want information. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
      • Not sure, and unimportant. By the 'average college professor' test (or, for that matter, the Google Groups test, given that very few of the references there are about me), I fall pretty far short of the standards for inclusion.--Paul Musgrave 15:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy ... er ... oh. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
    • I already have a user page, and a personal webpage for the truly interested.--Paul Musgrave 15:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I know. That's why the "... er ... oh" was there. Uncle G 16:01, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough yet. DJ Clayworth 21:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Having a person who is the topic of an article show up and request deletion of that article may or may not be enough to justify deletion by itself. However, that, when combined with the already questionable notability, leads me to say that this article should be deleted. - RedWordSmith 21:57, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Del. Not yet notable. -Jerzy(t) 02:56, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Brookie 20:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any reasonable claim of notability here. Alarm 22:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, questionable notability at best. Megan1967 22:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't argue with him about his own notability. dbenbenn | talk 19:03, 25 Jan 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. PoccilScript 00:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Varun raj tejavath

[edit]

postgrad student type vanity. Userfy if he logs in. Dunc|☺ 22:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete --nixie 23:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Josh Cherry 02:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. utcursch 06:44, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ah, to be in love...Lectonar 08:20, 20 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 00:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Lifecycle of Software Technology

[edit]

Very long research essay --nixie 23:24, 19 Jan 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 on 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. PoccilScript 00:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James Gibb

[edit]

Hoax. Indrian 23:36, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Joke by anon whose IP has a history of vandalism. It may perhaps contains some accurate material, but if so this material is not useful as it would be easier to start again rather than sort it out. Andrewa 00:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. - Jpo 00:58, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 00:59, 20 Jan 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 on 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were: 4 keep, 6 merge, 5 delete. Since "delete" was in the minority, I've decided to interpret "delete" votes as meaning "delete or merge". The two positions are in agreement that the information at least shouldn't be here.

South Hall

[edit]

Oldest building on campus. That doesn't seem notable enough to me. --LeeHunter 23:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a tough one. Certainly, the university is notable, but is this individual building? There's nothing I see in the article which makes me think it is. Perhaps there are significant events which happened here which made it notable, but if so, somebody's got to put them in the article to make it worthwhile. The age of the building isn't enough in my mind; it's worthy of a mention in the main university article (I assume there is one), but that's about it. The link to Sather Tower makes me wonder if somebody is thinking of writing articles for each and every building on campus. I'm going to call this a Weak Delete. --RoySmith 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information seems accurate. Plenty of room for this to grow. Seems roughly parallel to Sather Tower, which started off quite similar but has developed into a nice article. - Jpo 01:05, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems verifiable. - SimonP 01:04, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable building. --Centauri 02:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful into the campus article. No redirect, as I'm sure this isn't the only "South Hall" in the world by a long shot. -R. fiend 04:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with campus article. It's a nice building, but not especially notable. Sure, do articles on Bancroft Library, Sather Tower, Sproul Plaza, and maybe even Gilman Hall (in 1941, plutonium was first identified as an element in Room 307, and the room was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1966 [6]), but South Hall? Nah. --Calton 11:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, no redirect as it is definitely not the most famous South Hall by a significant margin. If it is notable, what is it notable for? Average Earthman 16:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, which South Hall is the most famous? --RoySmith 16:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, definitely the University of Wisconsin's South Hall, built in 1854, making it nineteen years senior to the California parvenu, yet only the second oldest building on the historic UW campus. (North Hall is the oldest). South Hall is the headquarters of the College of Letters and Science, a fabulous and colossal entity larger than many other entire universities, proudly boasting thirty-nine (39) top-notch departments and five (5) first-rate professional schools. South Hall is strategically located on the lovely glacial drumlin known as Bascom Hill, within a short distance of the famous Statue of Lincoln and the historic Sifting and Winnowing plaque. In springtime, the grounds surrounding the building afford excellent views of attractive young women disporting themselves on the green lawn. A firebombing during the era of campus protest thankfully left no visible scars on this elegant structure (apart from security mesh on the first-floor windows). Go Badgers! Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's more the significant bit than whether it's the most famous or not. I'm happy with, say, Winter Palace pointing to the building in St Petersburg rather than any other Winter Palace, as it is significantly the most famous. Where there isn't a clear front runner in the notability stakes, we probably shouldn't hand out the title on a first come first served basis. Average Earthman 21:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. --fvw* 23:06, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. There's lots of space for short notes about buildings on the University's own page right now. If the article does remain, it should be moved to South Hall (University of California) or something similar--a quick Googling reveals that Tufts University, the University of Arizona, Marquette University, and many others have their own South Halls. --TenOfAllTrades 04:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 16:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Some time during VfD this gem was somehow transformed into an article about a middle school in Georgia. Delete on the university building and strong delete on the middle school and its dress code. Szyslak 03:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, that's bizarre. Unfortunately, I don't think either of them is notable, so my vote is still to delete (note: don't double-count this, my real vote is above). --RoySmith 03:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Update: Now it's an article about the London neighborhood of Southall, which has its own article. This article's like an extra Random Page button. There seems to be some stuff worth merging into the real Southall article, so we might want to do that before this article's deleted. Szyslak 20:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this schizophrenic mess. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The current version ought to be merged into Southall, which is a bit stubby right now, and the UC Berkeley version into that article. --Calton 02:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Process Issue. The Southall version rv-ed, as a fork and simply an impediment to the VfD under consideration. (Yes, merge the Southall material into Southall, and if its advocates want South Hall as a redirect (or maybe someday a Dab if a worthy South Hall comes along) they can ask for it after this VfD completes.
The middle-school one also rv-ed, as this title is not suitable for it. (Write an article like South Hall Middle School if you really have nothing better to do, and that will get its own day on VfD.)
The question at hand is whether UC's South Hall should have an article, and others for which this name is not the ideal one are irrelevant to that discussion. There is such a thing as a "save" on VfD, a rewrite that turns a deletable article into a keeper, but that requires a rewrite that deserves exactly the title under consideration; articles that might want or deserve redirect or Dab-link from it need not apply.
--Jerzy(t) 03:29, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that the UC South Hall (already under this title upon VfD) is notable, and the others don't belong under this title (either) and are therefore not eligible as rewrites to "save" it. --Jerzy(t) 03:29 & 03:37, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Allow this article the opportunity for organic growth. GRider\talk 19:23, 24 Jan 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 on 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PEBCAK

[edit]

Has been listed for move to Wiktionary, but this is not a dictdef, it's nonsense. RickK 09:41, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not nonsense; it's a simple variation on PEBKAC. Redirect. Uncle G 10:56, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  • I didn't know the page PEBKAC existed. I have redirected it to that page. abelson 15:16, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to PEBKAC and add redirect. Megan1967 03:00, 21 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_19&oldid=1142647853"