Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 26 May 28 >

May 27

[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. CDC (talk) 18:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Gardiner

[edit]

This appears to be a fantasy biography. Jeff Gardiner is supposedly a U.N. peacekeeper, master juggler, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, member of the Hosplitar Order of St. Johns, published poet, and CEO of an ISP. Yet, there's not a single source for any of it. A request for sources on the article's talk page resulted in the admission by an anon editor that it was all original research. I think "research" it the wrong word. This is appears to be nonsense. Willmcw 21:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain. There appears to be some foundation for this article. I withdraw my (implied) vote to delete. If the article can be stripped down, cleaned up, and sourced over (quickly) then I might vote to keep. I'm not sure that this individual is notable for his verifiable information, and his moderately-successful military and business careers seem to have been uneventful. The article appears to be the product of vanity or sycophancy (such admirable qualities in other contexts). Are middle-aged IT professionals as notable as Pokemon characters? Well, in this case.....I abstain. -Willmcw 06:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sholtar 21:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not verifiable. --W(t) 21:17, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Comment - UN Peacekeepers in general won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize. The poetry anthology appears to be real (BookFinder.com). Idologic Inc. seems legitimate (Idologic.com). We have an article on the Turbot War. In short, all of the claims are reasonable, though I haven't been able (in a cursory Google search only, actual contact with Idologic, the Order of St. John, the UNDOF, any of the named universities, the Canadian Chamber of Contemporary Poetry might be able to turn up more) to find any verification that a specific person named Jeff Gardiner was connected with any of them. -- Jonel 02:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to verify him - I can't find a list of contributors to the anthology. Gardiner, according to this bio, was born in 1968, so it is possible that he was in the Canadian armed forces in 1988. Idologic do4es exist, but they don't mention Gardiner. Ditto for the other company. This guy would possibly be notable if any of this were verifiable. -Willmcw 03:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Megan1967 03:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and inform the woman he picks up tonight that the guy's not everything he claims to be. — Phil Welch 05:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Confirmed pg. 276 does contain a peom by a Jeff Gardiner. Recommend contacting Idologic.com via contact page. Was able to find brief Bio on Biomarkimaging.com "Contact Us" page. Megan1967 what deteremines "notable"? Phil Welch your comment is non-substantial and petty.
    • Thanks for providing this bio. Unfortunately, it does not support all of the info in the article. Do you know the source for the other info? Is Gardiner himself invoved in this editing? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:02, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Entries like this on, in the "births" section of March 20, make me wonder about the good faith of the editors involved in this article. "*1968 - Jeff Gardiner, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize". Obviously it was the U.N. which received the Peace Prize, not Gardiner. -Willmcw 23:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Another odd mention of Jeff Gardiner is in Gay rights, where someone added this sentence: "In May 2005, Jeff Gardiner supported the same sex union act by starting a flame." No idea what that is supposed to mean, and a question on the talk page hasn't elicited any answers. -Willmcw 23:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • I checked Biomark Imaging's site and found no mention of Gardiner on their contacts page or elsewhere. I have no way of checking the poetry (or is that peotry?), but I wouldn't take this source's word for it. --Michael Snow 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wanted to confirm that I can verify this: "Jeff CO-founded Idologic Inc. and currently holds the position of CEO of Idologic Inc. and Director of Information Technology at Biomark Imaging Inc." to be true. You can call the toll free number on the site idologic.com and there's contact information on biomarkimaging.com. Disclaimer, I am involved with both companies, but am not Jeff. "While employed with the Imaging Laboratories at Robarts Research Institute, a research Institute named after John Robarts" this is verifiable too at robarts.ca. Can't confirm any of the other things.
    • If we boil the article down to that bare minimum it's gonna be kinda dry. The company bio from Biomarkimaging.com appears to be a rewrite of his resume and neglects any details of his military career. The article seems as if it were written by a family member or employee. Has any newspaper ever done a profile of him, or otherwise reported on him? Thanks, -Willmcw 04:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • retracted
    • That URL didn't work, could you paste the relevant text into the talk page of the article, with a publication date? Thanks! Talk:Jeff_Gardiner -> or here is good too. -W.
  • Delete vanity
  • Delete vanity CDC (talk) 05:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - if this helps, the University of Western Ontario Alumni Directory lists a Jeffrey T. Gardiner graduating in 1996. (And, as above, the Robarts Research Institute is a real place at UWO.) Adam Bishop 05:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Ambi 16:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if the content of this article is factual it is almost impossible to verify its accuracy and neutrality. - SimonP 17:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. --NormanEinstein 17:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Michael Snow 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable due to lack of notability. -- JamesTeterenko 23:08, 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. JYolkowski // talk 13:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School

[edit]

This is yet-another-school promotion page. Most of the contents seem to be taken form a student's handbook. Not encyclopedic --Ragib 00:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beta m\vote\school

  • Delete yet another high school. Denni☯ 20:07, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Keep Please stop nominating school articles. It is becoming more and more clear that doing so is a waste of everyone's time. CalJW 23:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to refine. Use Wikipedia:Schools' guidelines, stop wasting time on fruitless VfD nominations. --BaronLarf 01:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. —RaD Man (talk 07:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, most schools listed for Vfd are because of lack of notability, but now you want to bring it down because the detail is so much, it is too notable? What kind of hypocrisy is this? I am reminded of a fable concerning a man, his son, and his donkey. Especially concerning notability: its a school in Hong Kong, not in the US, and hence the notability is raised even higher as it is an article attacking Systemic bias and even further, a great example of a Christian school in a Chinese culture within an authoritarian China. Yes, it needs to be copyedited (so things don't go out of date, ie. is the prinicipal of *add in year here*, rather than "current principal"), but it seems good enough. The very act of its actions concerning Tiananmen while being in China is an interesting issue, as well. Keep, definitely. You deletionists have gone out of your minds! -- Natalinasmpf 01:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Must keep: There are a lot of articles about schools in Wikipedia. If you want to delete this article, then does that mean we have to delete ALL of them? Besides that, this article is pretty long. It can be seen that the writers have paid a lot effort in it. Please respect the effort of the writers. I think all of us don't want other people to delete an article that we have spend a lot of effort to write. Also, Wikipedia should include all kinds of information, including information about schools. If you think this article is a "school promotion", then try to modify / clean up to make it a more contented article. But anyway, I truely believe that those people who started this article did not aim at having an advertisement for the school. This is a very predigious school in the area. I see no points for deleting this article just because it is school-related.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.1.231 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 Jun 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 CDC (talk) 18:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Starship Constitution

[edit]

A page for a Star Trek starship, that was never actually seen in any movie or episode, that was never actually mentioned in dialogue. This can never be anything more than the stubbiest of stubs. Everything that can be said about this starship is already covered in Constitution class starship. Delete AlistairMcMillan 00:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constitution class starship. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are only three actual pages that link to this one. "Constitution class starship" which I already mentioned and two others that could easily be pointed to "Constitution class starship". AlistairMcMillan 02:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. The starship class is canon, but the actual starship is technically fanon. Somewhere along the line it has been assumed that every class of starship is named for a vessel of that name, but I don't think that's the case. 23skidoo 04:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Force10 04:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote but it is probably canon if it appeared on the Starship Assignments board in Court Martial; it is certainly quasi-canon, as it has appared in "authorised" publications (Tech Manual; ST Fact Files; it is certainly firm fanon, because it's never been suggested that a class-ship exists without a class-originator ship of that title. --Simon Cursitor 06:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested

Lord Patrick 10:39, 27 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hingham Middle School

[edit]

Non-notable. Info subject to change. Denni☯ 00:48, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

User:Beta m\vote\school

Hingham Middle School is the only public school in Hingham, Massachusetts. It consists of three grades, 6-8. It is located at 1103 Main Street, Hingham, MA 02043. The principal is currently Roger Boddie, and the two Assistant Principals are Derek Smith and David Riordan. The school is part of the Hingham School District.
  • Only public school in small town, part of school district with same name as town. Adress and principles named. I don't see much useful info here. Delete, to make room for other article or transwiki to Student wikicity. Mgm|(talk) 20:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 21:19, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • keep. can we please stop this? go to wikipedia:schools instead Yuckfoo 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with Cyrius. There are millions of schools on Planet Earth much bigger and notable than Hingham Middle School. Why do people always forget that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Is this school notable enough? Keep I think I'll write an article on my ex-school now. --IncMan 23:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • The very reason to keep these entries is that Wikipedia is an encyclopeda. A special kind of encyclopedia, one where we will never run out of paper. The fact that people of many nations are willing and able to work on the articles is good evidence of their notability--that is, verifiable, neutral information can be obtained on the subjects. Please do feel free to enter articles about the schools that are bigger and more notable, or leave us to those who want to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except when the database servers run out of disk space and MySQL crashes and we have a couple of days of downtime while the developers scramble to recover the data and hope that no more than a few minutes' worth of work has been lost. No, deleting articles won't help with the disk space problem, but this idea that we actually have infinite storage is just wrong. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment At the end of May, 2005, the total database for all Wikipedia articles, in all languages, was only about 4.4 gigabytes. If there's a disk space shortage, it's not the articles causing it. Unfocused 05:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You forgot about the old revisions, like everyone does. Those are approaching 40 gigabytes as a compressed dump just for the English Wikipedia. There's also MySQL's 'binlogs' which are necessary to the replication system and to restore the database if corruption happens, and they tend to occupy large amounts of space. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hingham School District. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable school that deserves to stay. -CunningLinguist 03:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean-up, and edit.--JuntungWu 10:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hingham School District per Wikipedia:Schools. Encourage users not to clog VfD with schools; merge and improve, don't delete. --BaronLarf 22:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep improving this article. —RaD Man (talk 07:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny how all those voting with cute slogans like "all schools are notable! Keep and expand!" rarely if ever do actually expansion work. Neutralitytalk 04:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 18:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sophia Elizabeth Gates

[edit]

This infant is less than 7 months old and the daughter of a pair of radio personalities. No indication of either royal blood or individual notability. --Allen3 talk 01:34, May 27, 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 concensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 13:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polydeism

[edit]

Appears to be a neologism. Also, who is Andrew Landrum, any why do we care what he thinks? --Tabor 01:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete drini ☎ 02:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's getting very tiring seeing all these people reinvent Deism and feel that they need to have their own, unique, kewel name for it. Geogre 03:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have viewed the revision, and kudos to  BD2412 talk, but I can't change my vote. The reason is that it appears to be a term with no stable meaning or usage. The two citations appear to use the term in different senses entirely, and the head matter remains particularly vexatious and personal. Geogre 14:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That may be true (although even Deism has had different meanings at different times). The Sered book is in my Univ library, I'm going over there to have a look at it this afternoon. -- BD2412 talk 15:04, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
        • Ok, I looked up Sered's book and determined that her use is indeed different - she basically uses the term as a broader reference to polytheism (even where there is no 'theism' involved). She's empirically wrong, of course, because deism is not a term used to encompass all forms of spirituality, so polydeism shouldn't have any such meaning either. Bowman's use is the one that makes sense in light of the established meaning of deism. -- BD2412 talk 17:09, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
(Parenthetically, a comment: At least, before our contemporary times, Deism really only had two distinct meanings that surfaced a century or two apart. The search for the Universal religion and the search for the Natural religion are enough alike that the two Deisms are at least in communication with each other. Since our own day, however, folks have just been plain sloppy. They'll call anything Deism, anything theosophy, anything polytheism, and anything Sufism. That's why I was and remain opposed to this article. It seems to be another example of sloppy spiritual tourism to serve original research and Deep Thoughts.) Geogre 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I retort, sir, that your objection is actually best met by keeping this article, in order to prevent future misuses by providing the definitive argument for the term meaning what at least two scholars attribute it to mean - frankly, polydeism has only one etymologically logical meaning (a multiple-god form of classical deism), and other uses are clearly misguided (just as are recent misuses of deism), and contrariwise, polydeism is the only etymologically logical portmanteau to describe this concept, which apparently goes as far back as Hume (unless you want to throw around unweildy phrases like polytheistic deism or deistic polytheism). Wikipedia is not the place to create new terms - which this is not - but it certainly is a place to show up clearly wrongful uses for what they are! -- BD2412 talk 15:40, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
If you were to rewrite the article to strike out the Deep Thoughts and simply explain that it is a portmanteau term licensed in the exception of Deism's arguments rather than in the execution of them, I would most likely feel that it should be kept. I don't like negative articles ("The word Herb is not pronounced with a vocal H in America, but is in RP England") ("There is no place called Tralfalmadore"), but since the term occurs (in the breach, as it were), a negative would be useful here to prevent mysticophilosophicomorphism. The 18th c. also had a search for the natural language, but we don't hear folks wanting to claim that heritage. Geogre 16:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Materialism (illustrated by the Epicureans), represented today by atheism, skepticism, and Deism. The materialist may acknowledge superior beings, but they do not believe in a Supreme Being. Epicureanism was founded about 300 BC by Epicurus. Their world view might be called “polydeism”: there are many gods, but they are merely superhuman beings; they are remote, uninvolved in the world, posing no threat and offering no hope to human beings. Epicureans regarded traditional religion and idolatry as harmless enough as long as the gods were not feared or expected to do or say anything.

Furthermore, I'd really like to know who this Andrew Landrum. Frankly, I'd like more time to investigate this. -- BD2412 talk 01:08, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

  • - just did a little rewrite along those lines, too. -- BD2412 talk 01:48, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite, well-referenced discussion of the concept. Kappa 04:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I originally posted this on VfD, but with the rewrite, it seems in order as a legitimate article. --Tabor 23:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with Kappa Falphin 17:14, 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 delete. bainer (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Caralho

[edit]

I can't find reference to this event anywhere..--Hooperbloob 01:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to VfD log. --cesarb 01:41, 27 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, but the page was speedy deleted anyway by Rick. bainer (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cwod

[edit]

The subject of the article is a non-notable teacher of some sort. I originally marked it to be speedied, but I think the article has reached the point where it should be brought here. --Canderson7 01:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

there are many other useless articles on Wiki that you can spend your time deleting. I did not know that removing the speedy was a violation (whoops) but atleast its back now...err, was. Also, like the note says, the page is currently being broadcast to others to add their own information. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Retort #2:

The subject of the article is a non-notable teacher of some sort. While this may be true to you, others do know of him. Just because I do not know what happened on July 23, 1321 AD does not make that date unimportant. Notable is based on one's knowledge of a subject and the relative importance of said subject. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

I originally marked it to be speedied, Yes, you did. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

but I think the article has reached the point where it should be brought here. I do not see the logic behind bringing this page to this point, other than a few mistakes a new user can make. In accordance with Wiki's standards, it is NOT vandalism, and it is a work in progess, both of which are NOT reasonable causes for deletion! (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Refutation #3: If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can ever imagine. <--- Writing a paper in Spanish while trying to debate this with you. Give me a bit to reply. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Comeback #4 (for lack of a better word): Cwod does however have a claim to fame. Unlike most US citizens, he gave the speech prior to the current US President (he also introduced him) when the President appeared at <school> . See below: Memorials. It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

It seems that this would be a claim to fame...

You may think so; others may disagree. The VfD process is the accepted way of making that determination. --Tabor 02:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable, vanity, etc. CryptoDerk 02:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Final Statement: Wow, that didnt go like a debate like it should have. Just a bunch of people ignoring evidence and not analyizing the facts carefully. Since logic does not work here apparently, I will join the choir of people who wish to "make Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" by deleting every page under construction. Imagine if someone controlled the Internet and decided to delete every page that was under construction. Over 50% of the Internet would be gone. The invalid and untrue logic of the above arguments almost makes me want to lose faith in the human race. We are intelligent beings. We can debate and analyize in an orderly fashion. Yet, there are those who chose to yell "The sky is falling" without even checking if it actually is. Question every thing, debate where applicable, and analyize! Guaranteed to make the human race a better, more advanced society. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

We don't want to delete it because it's under construction, we want to delete it because it is not encyclopaedic. Articles about some teacher at some small school are not important. --bainer (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Small school and <school> in the same sentence. Funny! Since you do not know highschool sizes, EPHS is once of the largest highschools in the United States, and easily the largest highschool in the state it is located in. If you do not know what state it is in, get off of Wikipedia and use Google.com for a bit. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Oh, an encyclopedia (as defined by Webster [isnt he the first dictionary guy? Oh, nevermind, he was not "notable"]) is this (edit by 69.23.252.110)

Actually, Noah Webster's definition was worded a bit differently [1] --Tabor 02:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This will be deleted shortly, but with the hope that Mr. EvilZak sees this: Perhaps using above a 3rd grade vocabulary is not for you. (edit by 69.23.252.110)

  • Delete: A teacher. I'm sure he's a memorable instructor. However, he is not sufficiently notable to be properly included in an encyclopedia. We are neither the high school year book nor Who's Who in US Education. Geogre 03:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of the article's mudslinging notwithstanding, the individual is not notable. Force10 05:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with all delete votes above. --Metropolitan90 05:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call bluff -- the author says the page will be used to prove the subject's notability. Fine: give the page until close of vote, then lock it and renominate as it then is. If enough people then feel the article is justified, let it stay; if this proves to be educ-cruft, then delete --Simon Cursitor 06:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Frjwoolley 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles on individual non-notable teachers at individual (debatably notable) high schools are inherently non-verifiable. ESkog 16:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted for the taunts made here and the taunts on the article and the threat to bring in over 200 other students to write more drek. RickK 19:41, May 27, 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael J. Kaczynski

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. CDC (talk) 18:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Texas Media Watch

[edit]

This page should be delted because the topic is non-notable. Texas Media Watch claims to be a non-partisan watch group. However, the Austin Chronicle, a paper with cirulation of 88,000 [2] and readership of over 250,000 [3] points out that this so-called group appears to consiste of only a single person, Sherry Sylvester. This is supported by the fact that she is the only person ever mentioned as part of the group on their own pages or on any Google produced reference to the site. Speaking of Google, "Texas Media Watch" produces less than 2,000 hits. For a group focused on media and publicity, this is a paltry number of hits. Therefore, the fails a reasonable test for notability. The page was created by a user who wishes to add quotes from them into a NPOV section of Houston Chronicle. Johntex 03:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Texas Media Watch's web site indicates that Ms. Sylvester is an award winning journalist who was once the Political Writer at the San Antonio Express-News. [4]. Some of the Google hits are actual articles from notable newspaper and media outlets in Texas. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. First of all, the "organization" (well, website) appears to be defunct. The sole contributor "stepped down" shortly after the 2004 election,[5] and no further newsletters have been published since then. Its claims as an independent, unbiased source should be viewed skeptically, as it was funded by a major Republican operative in Texas (David Hartman). Other than the fact that the writer was a journalist, what makes it significantly different from a blog? --Tabor 04:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment According to your link (which goes to a fully functioning website BTW), Sylvester wrote "I am stepping down as Director of Texas Media Watch on December 1, 2004, but this project is slated to continue." (emphasis added). I have updated the article to reflect that Sylvester is no longer with the group. Rangerdude 04:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Ah, TMW said it would continue. Well, I'm just looking at the fact that Sherry Sylvester is the only byline I found on any articles on the site, that she is no longer involved, and that what was once a weekly newsletter has not brought forth a single issue in the 6 months since her resignation. Clearly we'll just have to take TMW's word that it is a vibrant, functioning media criticism organization. --Tabor 04:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Regardless of what your original research into the site's editing history indicates, what they publish is what we have to go by. Otherwise you are assuming a status for the organization that it has not announced for itself. Rangerdude 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, for the purposes of this VfD it is entirely legitimate to look under the covers and see what is really going on. This is basically a defunct blog of minor notability. The article itself can certainly repeat the claim that it will reopen. -Willmcw 04:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the VFD process on this article was initiated with no discussion, no comment on the article itself, and only a few minutes after its creation. The editor who proposed this deletion is currently involved in a dispute over using Texas Media Watch (TMW) as a source on the Houston Chronicle article and has inserted several POV comments to disparage TMW there. Based on these reasons, this VfD is IMO premature and inappropriately called. It should also be noted that the article cited by Johntex from the Austin Chronicle as a basis for his VfD (found here for anyone who wants to see it [6]) is a rabidly partisan rant replete with namecalling and attacks on the "hard rightist" columnists published by TMW's parent group, the Lone Star Foundation. It's highly questionable to me whether we should be evaluating the propriety of this article based solely on such a blatantly POV attack piece on the organization. Rangerdude 04:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is not at all uncommon for articles to be nominated for VfD within minutes of their creation. The topic is unnotable as shown by the small number of Google hits. What would be the point of waiting? Johntex 04:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell, this organization is one person writing about what other people have written. Unless that person has had a great influence on the media or people's opinions (something which is not evidenced in the article), I don't see how it is notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Xcali 04:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment' The latest posting I can find on their website is from November 2004 stating that Sylvester is stepping aside. The "upcoming events" section of the website is blank. She/They do not seem to be an active concern at the moment. Rangerdude, who created the TMW article, would like to claim this is an issue of bias of some sort, but it is really about a non-notable "group" he wishes to reference in his arguments because he agrees with their (her) point of view. Johntex 04:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That is not for us to decide. I stated that this is an issue of bias on your part because the record shows clearly that it is indeed just that. After I used TMW as a source for a very brief quote on the Houston Chronicle page, you attempted to qualify it through disparaging POV language here [7], here [8], and here [9] all based upon a single rabidly partisan opinion diatribe from the Austin Chronicle located here [10]. Rangerdude 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment rather than a lengthy explanation of the bias you have added to the Houston Chronicle article - I will simply point out that your above staement has no bearing on whether Texas Media Watch is worthy of an article. Johntex 05:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Your POV edits speak for themself, Johntex, as do my attempts to restore neutrality following them. Whether you believe so or not, they have direct bearing on this VfD process since your case for removing this article is premised entirely upon the same partisan rant from the Austin Chronicle that you were attempting to insert with POV commentary into the Houston Chronicle article. Furthermore, since I created and proposed the TMW article as an alternative for the placement of your and Katefan's passages about TMW and Sylvester, which did not belong in the middle of the Houston Chronicle article where you placed them, the dispute on Houston Chronicle is a directly relevant reason in favor of retaining the TMW article. Rangerdude 05:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment You have produced zero evidence to counter the Austin Chronicle's claim that it was a "one-woman" shop. (Even liberal publications are right sometimes - and the Austin Chronicle appears to be right this time, as evidenced by the fact that no one but her has ever appeared in association with the website, and the fact that the website has not been updated once in the 6 months since her departure). Furthermore, you continue to ignore the compelling evidence that her web site gets low Google hits, as I pointed out in my VfD nomination. Do you have anything to say that is on topic here? Johntex 05:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment To the contrary. The fact that it is operated by the Lone Star Foundation indicates that it was more than a "one woman" shop. Nor did the Austin Chronicle ever establish that it was - they merely speculated that it was in a rabidly partisan editorial piece of suspect credibility in its own right. Nor is your unscientific google survey "compelling evidence" by any reasonable measure. Do you have anything to say that legitimately justifies this article's deletion beyond your own bias against what the group said about the Chronicle? Rangerdude 06:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Force10 05:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, defunct minor blog. -Willmcw 05:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Make that a "defunct, minor, short-lived (two years) blog. Per Simon Cursitor, if anyone wants to redirect the info to Sherry Sylvester that might not be bad either. Sylvester is apparently a journalist-turned-Communications Director who is mentioned in the minimally-verifiable blogs of others.[11] It sounds like she'll be a spokesperson for an upcoming gubernatorial campaign in New Jersey. There may be enough verifiable information to make a biography. -Willmcw 07:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable blog. U$er 06:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: is Ms.Sylvester worthy of an entry ? If so, can this not be rewritten around her, with context of her award-winning journalism, and a redirect posted from a TMW title ? --Simon Cursitor 06:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As author of the original, I would not object to a redirect to an article on Sylvester in its place. Rangerdude 07:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think it is an intriguing idea. However, she still does not seem that notable. 571 Google hits, assuming they are all for the same person. [12] Johntex 07:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Per WP:BIO google hits are not a criterion for establishing or refuting significance. Circulation figures, however, are and the minimum threshold is 5,000. Sylvester was the political reporter at the San Antonio Express News - a major daily paper with circulation in the hundreds of thousands. That alone is sufficient. Rangerdude 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentThat is incorrect. WP:BIO does not say google hits are not a criterion for establishing/refuting significance. To the contrary, WP:BIO specifically mentions checking Google as an alternative test. Please read the page you are citing. Johntex 21:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • From WP:BIO: "Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include...google test." This does not in any way espouse, establish, sanction, or give credibility to a google test. Following the google test link, one immediately finds that (1) unlike WP:BIO, it is NOT an official wikipedia guideline and (2) substantial reason exists to question its accuracy including a "google bias" that openly concedes its accuracy problems, issues pertaining to its validity, and notice that other search engines may be more accurate and have a wider sample of sites. Rangerdude 21:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • From WP:POL - the definition of a guideline is "informal rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases". Simply put, you are elevating a Wikipedia guideline to a level of canon that it simply does not enjoy. It is a fact that Google tests are allowed as an indication of notability. It is also a fact that no one is forced to use them. It is also a fact that you have to consider what you are Googling when interpreting the results. Common sense is that a topic relating to the media in the US would be expected to get a lot of media hits. Therefore, a low Google hit rate is relevant here, and allowed by Wikipedia. By the way, if Google searches are so bad, why have you (in just the past 24 hours) cited them several times when you felt they supported your view? Johntex 21:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wrong. I have repeatedly noted that WP:BIO is a guideline, albeit a formal wikipedia guideline. That may not be an official policy, but it is a step below an official policy and many steps above your silly "google test" which aren't official for anything and have multiple disclaimers of their own warning about the dangers of using them as a determinant. Rangerdude 22:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being used to make political points, non-notable. RickK 19:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with RickK --Neigel von Teighen 22:12, 27 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!) 11:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aguinaldo, Ifugao

[edit]

Utter gibberish qitaana 03:32, May 27, 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. CDC (talk) 18:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christina Baldwin

[edit]

Unknown/non notable "artist". A Google search for "Christina Baldwin" artist [14] only turns up 602 hits. On top of that, none of these hits seem to be about her, but rather about writers and such. CryptoDerk 03:40, May 27, 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 irrelavent, the article was speedy deleted by Cyrius. bainer (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order 67

[edit]

This is Idiotcruft. It has nothing to do with Star Wars 61.69.12.15 04:31, 27 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. CDC (talk) 18:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SpikeLtd.com

[edit]

Some no name forums site with 43 memebers. Alexa rank low [15]. CryptoDerk 05:04, May 27, 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/redirect Job (professional wrestling) CDC (talk) 18:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jabroni

[edit]

While it might deserve a blurb on the article for The Rock, it definitly can't stand as its own article. See WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is no more than a definition, and any background information that was added about the word would probably not be all that encyclopedic. Also, being a derisive term, it is a potenital vandalism magnet. Lastly, the article is an orphan; the fact that no one cares enough to even link to it clearly shows that it isn't that notable.

Keep -Casito⇝Talk 05:54, 27 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. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dusty Mangum

[edit]

This article is about a minor college football place kicker - not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Rangerdude 06:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article points out, he also holds the school record for most consecutive PATs (Points After Touchdown) for a storied football program such as UT, that is certainly notable. He holds numerous other records and awards as well. Johntex 06:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm Canadian and know nothing about American college football. That said, this guy seems more notable than a number of articles we already have. Scimitar 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A school record isn't very meaningful. The heroic act on the field was memorable. However, it is better to merge his matter to the Rose Bowl in question and set up a redirect there until he establishes more than local notability or has a sustained career. School records fall every year, while NCAA records much less often. Geogre 17:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree that Rangerdude is being disruptive, I vote delete. Non-notable college player. If he makes it in the pros, or is voted into the College Football Hall of Fame, then I will reconsider. RickK 19:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable (yet anyway). --W(t) 21:21, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like a well-written and interesting encyclopedia entry to me. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I still think it's B.S. that the Rose Bowl isn't Pac10 vs. Big 10 any more... regardless, Mangum is certainly notable enough to be included in the (notpaper) encyclopedia. -- Jonel 03:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hasnt established notability yet. Megan1967 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree his performance in the Bowl, together with the record, make him notable, at least insofar as he is a likely trivia answer. Xoloz 06:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 12 edits, all to VfD pages. RickK 19:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think that is kind or especially relevant -- might be considered "biting" a newbie. I've just registered, but I'm a long time peruser and occasional grammar correcter. I was this address formerly (141.211.138.85.) 500 edits. If someone can make a reasonable and sincere contribution anywhere, please don't try to ostracize them. Don't assume people are sock-puppets if they can write in complete sentences. Xoloz 05:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no personal attack there, nor was one implied. I did not even say you were a sock puppet. The above is merely a statement of fact. And if you look at the procedures for votes for deletion, you will see that the votes of anons and new users can be discounted by the admin who closes the vote. This was merely applying more information for the admin. And if, as you say, you're not a newbie, then you would know that. RickK 05:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
          • I didn't claim it was a personal attack, but do maintain it is irrelevant in light of my provided information. I have, as a somewhat-newbie, only seen these posting-number "clarifications" attached to sock-puppets in the past. This is why I believed the notice was unkind, when attached to one who has -- finally -- bothered to register. In any event, my post served to notify the admin of my additional edits, relevant information. I have no aspirations to be a Wikipedia devotee, but I will defend my right to vote as a sincere good-faith user.Xoloz 06:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then may I suggest you contribute to the actual article space? RickK 07:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
              • If you examine my former IP address provided prior to your rhetorical question, you will see that I have, and I will. I am too circumspect regarding my intellect to contribute enormous content, but I do proofread well enough. Your rhetorical question also strikes me as less than kind, incidentally, but I will restrain from bickering further. Xoloz 07:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fascinating debate here, and one that raises a question for me. I've had a user account for about two weeks and been editing anonymously for about two months. Yet, I didn't know that "newbie" votes could be discounted. Does that still make me one of these newbies? At what point, after how many edits or how long after becoming a user do my votes count? I hope that my work on Vfd has not been in vain. I hope you can clarify this, Rick.--Sophitus 08:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Of course it's up to the admin who actually closes the discussion, but the general rule of thumb is 50 edits. RickK 21:28, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable college player. JamesBurns 10:56, 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 No Consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dan Patrick (radio host)

[edit]

Unnotable radio talk show host. Gets only 698 Google hits. He can be adequately covered at KSEV. Johntex 06:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" - Patrick is a major political figure in Houston who has received extensive press coverage for his activities.
"Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" - Patrick is a published author of a book that's sold well over 5,000 copies.
"Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more" - Patrick is a TV personality who has held positions on several different stations' TV news broadcasts in Houston - a media market that exceeds well over 5,000 in audience share. Rangerdude 07:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree you correctly quote WP:BIO, although it is only a guideline, not a policy. Do you have sources to accurately substantiate your claims as to the number of copies or his book or as to his listening audience? Johntex 07:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment his station got a 1.8 arbitron according to this [18], which I believe is somewhere in the 30,000 listeners range. Rangerdude 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Thanks. That is not conclusive evidence since we don't know how much of that is his show. Still, together with whatever the book has done, I agree it is likely he is reaching at least 5,000 people. I reiterate that what you quote above is a guideline, not a policy. I disagree with this guideline because I believe media people face a higher bar because they naturally reach a lot of people by virtue of their occupation. In the spirit of cooperative editing, I will take some time to reconsider my vote in light of the additional evidence you have produced. Thanks again. Johntex 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - use a little common sense. KSEV is a well known station in Houston, Texas - one of the top 10 media broadcast markets in the country - and Patrick has the prime afternoon drive slot. Based on that alone it's safe to say that he gets well over 5,000 listeners. And even if he did not on radio, Patrick was also a newscaster on the evening broadcast of at least two different stations in the same media market - enough to gather him well over 5,000 viewers on any given night. Rangerdude 15:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Once again you miss my main point. There is no policy that says we have to include anyone who has over 5,000 listeners. Johntex 19:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment there is a very specific guideline though that is formally considered as such and used as a basic measure for the propriety of biography inclusions. Per that guideline, Patrick qualifies on three separate counts - as a significant local political figure, as an author, and as a media personality. And yes, WP:BIO is a much stronger basis for determining an article's appropriateness than your random, arbitrary, unscientific and manipulation-susceptable "google" measure, so I'll yield to it. Rangerdude 19:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rangerdude's evidence. Kappa 09:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 09:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He is a figure of local import only. His book is not exactly racing up the charts. His radio show is not widely syndicated. On the other hand, there is another Dan Patrick who works for ESPN who is on ESPN Radio some of the time. Isn't he a "Dan Patrick (radio host)?" Were this guy to have acted upon the Houston area in such a way as to have caused a significant change in it, then the local would be national. As it is, he's an entertainer, and we don't want articles on all the "funny DJ's" from the morning shows or the local weather girls, either. Geogre 13:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abstain - read a bit more and don't feel informed enough anymore to decide. Karol 13:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per evidence provided, as much as I hate conservative radio talk show hosts. --Unfocused 14:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and published extreme right wing loony. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rangerdude's evidence. Right wing hackery is irrelevant. Scimitar 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Radio program plus book plus political efforts make him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and significant. Joebwan 18:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --W(t) 21:22, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • keep please as per randerdude Yuckfoo 23:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO. JamesBurns 10:57, 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. CDC (talk) 18:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lltt

[edit]

A joke. Google says [19] and [20]. Jonnabuz (talk) 07:00, 27 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. CDC (talk) 18:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A. Rahman A.H.

[edit]

Unverifiable. Only unrelated hits on Google using the name or "fighters' republic". Also, the age of this "leader" is 17. Jonnabuz (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that the hashashin haven't existed since the 13th century and the leader is 17, definite vanity--Sophitus 10:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and for future reference list things like this for speedy as {{nonsense}}--nixie 14:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The hashashin relates to a New Zealand gang that is growing in popularity with the younger generation. In relation to the order of the Hashashin.. The name was based on this assassins guild... The gang itself is somewhat based on the movie "Fight Club" in that many students have organised fights and public demonstrations.. He is a sketchy character but defenitely important for the current times in New Zealand and the next upcoming years.

(Non-user; School Professor; M. Carey. Auckland University)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, but the page was speedy deleted anyway by Rick. bainer (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit]

Article has been speedy deleted once after this VfD debate. This version does have more than just external links. It has descriptions of the external links and there are book references. However, the title is biased, and pieces of encyclopedic information in the article are few and far between, if there at all. Sjakkalle 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Briefly summarising a collection of external links is just as bad as having nothing but external links. In any event the article is not encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Megan1967 09:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It's not just a collection of links, it's anti-JW propaganda. Not that I go much on Jehovah's Witnesses myself, but this is just a series of attacks. Jamyskis 11:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly speedily) Some of this could legitimately be added to the JW article, this could lead to some messy disputes, but it seems the only way to operate. PatGallacher 11:31, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page is nothing more than an advertisement for a series of attack pages. As such it is non-encyclopedic and hopelessly POV. Scimitar 14:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — proselytization; non-neutral PoV. — RJH 15:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article should most definitely stay, as there is a mass of important critical information about this religious group that pro-JWs refuse to even consider, or want the public to see on the main Jehovah's Witness page, and is highly relevant information about this religion. If the page is removed then the links and information on the critical page must go on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, which will end up with World War 3 edits wars. Most regular JW posters on the main Jehovah's Witness page want this critical page to exist, but on a separate page as it now is, as they do not want critical information on the main Jehovah's Witness page. If you, Sjakkalle insist on creating trouble, you will end up trashing all the JW related pages, and creating chaos and edit wars that will never end. I can only see your personal motives as extreme trouble making, and meddling with your ego power games. I note you've made no contributions at all to anything on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, so why are you now inciting trouble and edit wars? Most JWs who use the main Jehovah's Witness page, agree there should be a critical page that is separate. If you insist on causing anarchy and trouble, you must take responsibly for trashing the main page also, as that is what will happen over and over again, if critical information is not given a rightful place, especially as most pro-JW posters on the main Jehovah's Witness page refuse to allow critical links, books, or any real balance (note all the links are positive on the main JW page as an example). This links page, Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses, should definitely stay, and you should keep from making trouble and chaos on Wikipedia, especially where you've made zero contributions to the pages/subjects you are seeking to destroy/sabotage. I suggest you Sjakkalle should desistfrom your thoughtless and irresponsible trouble making.Eyesopen 27 May 2005
I would point out that you're the only one arguing for keep, so Sjakkalle is hardly alone in his trouble making, nor is it trouble-making. The problems with the article have already been stated. Forgive me if I cause offense hear, but your reasoning makes as much sense as arguing that we need a "critical information on Jews" page to counteract edit wars with Nazis. Editting disagreements are, respectfully, no reason to keep a page that does not meet the criteria of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, launching ad hominem attacks on Sjakkalle does not strengthen your argument. Scimitar 21:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is misnamed (capitalization is irregular), and what it implies is "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses." Well, such criticisms aren't hard to find. The 1967 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for example, had an extremely short entry on the group, concluding that they are a "vile sect." A "criticisms" section in the JW article should eat most of this, but in an NPOV fashion. Article is inherently POV and should go. Geogre 17:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as a mere collection of links. RickK 19:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, normally I'd say merge with Jehovah's witness, but that seems to have the matter covered already. --W(t) 21:24, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I have quite strong feelings about this particular religious cult, any information should go in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article, and represnet all views. That is NPOV.Dunc|☺ 22:05, 27 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 both. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism

[edit]

User:Willy on Wheels and User:Wikipedia is Communism are no doubt attention seekers, or as I think, one and the same attention seeker, and getting an entire entry on WP:VIP all for himself gives him precisely the attention that he desires. That WoW enjoys this page can be seen from this diff. In all likelihood, all the userpages of the blocked sockpuppets are "trophies", and these pages, in effect vanity pages for WoW and WiC, must be the biggest trophies of them all. I think we should take these trophies away. Sjakkalle 07:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, I don't see why we should keep a lengthy record of every vandal. Delete Radiant_* 07:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Be bold: redirect them to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, or to the associated userpages (User:Willy on Wheels and User:Wikipedia is Communism), and forget about them. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reason to keep these especially since they (at least in the case of WoW) are a trophy and a target for further vandalism. --nixie 08:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a trophy cabinet. Thryduulf 08:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this. Utter Vanity Lord Patrick 10:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I too have come to realize that these pages do little to manage the vandals. I made the page (WiC) simply because it was clogging up the long ternm alerts page.There have been times when one of the vandals struck repeatedly that this page was useful but I suppose short term alerts could serve that roll as well. BrokenSegue 11:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC) I switch to weak keep after reading the below. BrokenSegue 19:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These pages are in fact sections of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts which were split off because they were getting too big. They are meant to help watching for new vandalism of the same kind, not as trophies. And if the vandal starts targetting them, it serves as a useful canary. --cesarb 13:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People who devote their time to vandal-patrolling have kept a painstaking record of this sort of thing in order to prevent it reoccurring (which in this case has been effective). It's rather offensive to see such work brushed aside as vanity or excess. — Dan | Talk 13:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not an attempt to brush aside the work of vandal hunters. The point of listing these for deletion is to eliminate pages which I feel are giving too much attention to a vandal. Sjakkalle 13:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per cesarb and Rdsmith. Ambi 13:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think a better way to keep track of these vandals is with a template, like that it already put on WiC. The template should be listed with the long term alert, and applied to new pages, it can also be used to find the already banned socks. These tropy pages aren't really necessary if such a system was in place. --nixie 14:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the solution to the attention problem is to give him even more attention by VfDing it? Keep. silsor 15:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Refactor. Willy on Wheels, Ass Pus/Pelican Shit/Bugger, and {{{SITENAME}}} is Communism (whom several have suspected to be all one single individual) are recurring pests. But what is equally tedious to deal with are the "There's a new vandal! HE MUST BE DEALT WITH!" screaming alerts that come up on the talk pages of the various projects' main pages, VIP pages, and sysop user pages. These pages, here and on other WikiMedia projects, are not just trophies. They are ways of informing well-meaning editors that this is not some massive immediate emergency that requires spamming of talk pages, but a regular, long-term, simmering, problem, that will be dealt with this time as it was dealt with the last umpteen times. (They have also been ways of editors venting their frustrations at the perceived inabilities or unwillingnesses of developers to deal with these problems.) Recording the modus operandi of this(these) vandal(s) is important, so that well-meaning editors can recognize more of the same old vandalism from the same person when they see it. I think that information about these vandals should be merged, however. {{{SITENAME}}} is Communism has appeared on Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikinews to my knowledge. Willy on Wheels and Ass Pus has(have) appeared even on non-WikiMedia wikis, such as SwarmWiki. In many cases, an attack on one wiki is almost immediately followed by attacks on others using the same user name. There's an area on Meta that is specifically devoted to cross-project vandalism. It should be employed to greater extent for this(these) vandal(s). Uncle G 15:28, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Keep this is valuable information for vandal hunters. Unfortunately, they're always going to have some attention. Let's make it easier to track them down and ignore them as much as possible. Besides, it provides a central point to share info on them and stops info on them from spreading too much. (I'm not against an alternative for keeping info on these vandals, but such a system should be in place before deleting this info.) Mgm|(talk) 20:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm not sure they're honestly of much use to vandal hunters, but they're good faith efforts at being useful, and if some people feel they are being useful by all means let's keep them.
Unsigned by User:Weyes. Hedley 21:26, 27 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 copyvio (was subsequently deleted). Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yellow mustang registry

[edit]

Severe rewrite as community effort, or delete. At the moment, this is advertising (at best). TVPR 07:57, 27 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 (all keeps from anons/sockpuppets) CDC (talk) 18:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aerosmith Daily Update

[edit]

Vanity about some guy and his blog. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:02, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, blog vanity. --bainer (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, blog promo. Megan1967 09:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity--Sophitus 10:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo. No relevant Google hits. And as of now, the article currently does not list the most important fact of all (And no, I am not going to say it here) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the linguistically intriguing and rare appearance of the verb to hate on. Is this Spanish influence? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is neither a blog nor a personal promo. While this might need to be more descriptive, it is an accurate description of an aerosmith related mailing list that has grown exponentially in the MPLS/St. Paul area. It is a cultural event. --B2theory (Note: This vote is by 65.248.222.130 (talk · contribs); user's first edit.)
  • Keep, This is a real mailing list that started as a joke between a few college roommates and some co-workers. Somehow it has blossomed (the list has grown by a factor of 7) into a much anticipated event occuring 2 times a week. (hence the question why is it called the Aerosmith DAILY Update) The ADU is well known for its Aero knowledge and excellent humor. I am quite sure Mr. Johnson does not have a blog nor is he interested in starting one, therefore this cannot be considered a blog promo --Centaur118 (Note: This vote is by 206.11.149.61 (talk · contribs); user's seventh edit.)
  • Keep, I happen to be a member on the ADU list and hold the title of VP of records and misc other tasks. My involvement in Wikipedia is comical as I am an important VP and have little time for other tasks such as this. The entry is not self-promotion as another person on the ADU list wrote the entry. Nor, does the author "Andy Johnson" have a blog, nor would he ever start blog. In fact, he is the kind of guy/rocker that would beat-up anyone bragging about their blog. Please feel free to email me at WLSTIPE3@hotmail.com if you wish to receive a word doc. containing all 62 back issues of the ADU.--WLSTIPE
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 00:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Sugar Cane Method

[edit]

Another original research opionion/advice piece that is unverifiable for me. Delete. Lupo 08:08, 27 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 delete. bainer (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tabatha Vintronum

[edit]

Google suggests non-notability. This user created a couple of other vanity/nonsense articles (e.g. Shireena Christensen). Jonnabuz (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied as patent nonsense. Nothing to see here; part of a vandalism spree. —Xezbeth 09:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. bainer (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shireena Christensen

[edit]

Porno and quick google did not return any info about the subject. pamri 08:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedied as patent nonsense. Nothing to see here; part of a vandalism spree. —Xezbeth 09:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. bainer (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nonexistent article

[edit]

Created by a vandal. pamri 08:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 13:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wahid AKA "ACE"

[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 no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tory Belleci

[edit]

I like the show, but I don't think a part in it justifies a separate WP entry. - Baumi 09:33, 27 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 - no consensus so merged into list of artists as a compromise. - SimonP 22:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of artists by nationality

[edit]

Not a useful, descriptive, or complete list michael 10:04, 27 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. JYolkowski // talk 13:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coombe Dean School

[edit]

Non-notable comprehensive school, like several hundred others in the country. Dunc|☺ 10:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It seems to end up in the local news a lot more than most schools in the area, and until we've established how notability affects VfD in relation to schools, I say the article should be kept. Incidentally, this is the school I went to. Jamyskis 11:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can we please stop this voting "keep" until the Wikipedia Schools thing is done? (Stopping voting "delete" is to vote "keep," after all.) Geogre 03:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is that if keepers stop voting "keep", and deleters keep voting "delete", the school article gets deleted, and the keepers won't like that. Sjakkalle 06:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It exists now. Therefore, it takes a consensus to delete. Having reflex "keep" votes (a big, persistent criticism that "particular school particular vote" folks like me have) and then taunts that everyone must stop voting delete until the golden dawn really doesn't help. There is no consensus on keeping, none on deleting, but the delete folks, so far as I've seen, haven't been targeting other Wikipedians for abuse nor running pages to marshal -bot like votes. (And I figure that I would have been called if there were such a thing, since I vote delete on most schools because most anything isn't notable.) Geogre 14:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:Schoolwatch is vote-neutral. It only tells you if a vote for deletion is on, and which article that vote is on. It doesn't tell you how to vote. "No consensus on keeping" is a straw man; outside speedies, no article needs consensus to keep. Actually a lot of people seem to think that schools are intrinsically encyclopedic (an opinion that I share), hence the consistency of recent school VfDs in opposing deletion of schools--indeed in most cases returning a majority vote for keep. The deletion of any school article seems to be becoming a minority position. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch states that it [...] is a campaign to ensure that articles on schools are allowed to develop on Wikipedia. Is that "vote-neutral"?--Nabla 15:43, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
        • Yes, in the manner in which it is executed, the Schoolwatch page is vote-neutral. Anybody can pop it onto his watchlist and vote according to his preferences. The fact that people interested in preserving schools from arbitrary deletion act as if this kind of publicity will attract more keep votes than delete votes suggests that they believe that in general school articles on Wikipedia are fairly popular. This belief seems to be born out by events; as schoolwatch has been used more so the proportion of people voting "keep" on school VfDs has grown, to the point where now it quite often exceeds those voting delete--an unusual event on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Verifiable, NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:42, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Keep: Distinguishable, therefore not "like" several hundred other schools in the country. -- Natalinasmpf 16:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another high school. Denni☯ 20:31, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Comment. As the second day of this listing draws to a close, it may be as well to take stock of the status of school articles on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive

Some 64 school-related deletion listings started so far this month have been closed, and all the data was kept. A school playing field was merged with redirect to the associated school article, two listings were withdrawn by their nominators, and the remaining 61 articles were kept. Articles listed for deletion included three about middle schools and one about a primary school. The rest were presumably secondary or high schools. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The updated statistics for May are now as follows:
Nominated: 75; kept: 65; redirected (merged): 1; withdrawn: 2; pending: 7
The pending nominations seem to my eye to all have overwhelming keep votes, which if true will bring the result of VfD nominations for May to 75 nominations, no deletions, and just one merge and redirect (which doesn't require a VfD decision). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what your point is. I will continue to vote for deletion of high school articles as a matter of principle. Just as there are notable people, there are notable schools. However, just as there are non-notable people... Denni☯ 23:16, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
    • I just want to remind everyone that non-notability is not a criterion for deletion because notability cannot be wholly separated from subjectivity. Non-notability should be a minor factor in the decision against an article, not the whole case. Keep because this battle against schoolcruft cannot be won. You people who nominate these articles for deletion must realize that for every school you nominate, two thousand 14 year olds are hammering away at their keyboards about their own local school. You cannot win. --Barfooz (talk) 03:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I have a point, or that I need one. The facts speak for themselves. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have every right to vote for deletion of schools if you so wish, but as long as you are in the minority, these articles won't get deleted. Jamyskis 10:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quale 08:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating a school damages Wikipedia by wasting time and creating ill-will. CalJW 23:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Verifiable secondary school. Stop clogging VfD with schools; use Wikipedia:Schools --BaronLarf 22:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep on keeping schools. —RaD Man (talk 07:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and quit nominating schools. Ketsuban (is 1337) 03:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless and generic. Gamaliel 22:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and i agree with Ketsuban and many others up the page expressing such an opinion. Celestianpower 22:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's also a lot better than a lot of other school pages out there. Celestianpower 22:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Which explains where the whole "delete these ridiculous school stubs" movement comes from. RickK 22:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and quit creating articles about unimportant topics. RickK 22:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Masjid e Tooba

[edit]

Is this notable? Has anybody heard of it? Does it merely need wikifying? Donovan Ravenhull 11:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it does appear to be a major building in Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan. Some of us have made a start at improving the article. PatGallacher 11:49, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep, suggest withdrawl of nomination. Please at least Google your subject before nominating for deletion. This is the Pakistani rough equivalent of the Dom Cathedral in Cologne, Germany. --Unfocused 14:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STOP the attacks on the motives of VfD nominations, or I will start deleting them as deletion of personal attacks. Discuss the merits of the article, not the person who made the nomination. Having said that, "Masjid e Tooba" only gets 53 Google hits, so the nomination itself is perfectly valid. Having said that, no vote. RickK 19:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unverifiable. I agree with RickK, and I'll join him in deleting articles if more people use VfD to attack those who list articles for deletion. This is supposed to be deliberative, and that means it's a place for establishing the questionable cases. Do not be intolerant. Geogre 03:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears to me that you've misunderstood what RickK was threatening. RickK was objecting to ME suggesting that people Google their nominations before nominating them, and threatening to remove my comments attached to my vote, not the article itself. Although I think RickK and I disagree about whether my suggestion of a quick Google before nomination is a personal attack worthy or removal on sight or not, I respect that he remained completely objective about leaving the article itself out of the disagreement. Unilateral removal of the article itself is not a valid option. "Unverifiable" in your comments suggests you haven't seen the photos of the place linked in the article itself, nor Googled it yourself to see that it is a major tourist attraction in Karachi. It is clearly verifiable. Notability? I can't decide that for you, but to me, it clearly is. Unfocused 04:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not Google ahead and have not Googled now. What is unverifiable is "tallest." What we can't verify are the claims within the article that give the notability. I have no doubt it's a real place, and I have nothing against monuments being in Wikipedia, but we have to resist the tallest, biggest, oldest, busiest, emptiest, etc. for every town in the world. That's not our function, but rather a Guiness Book and Baedeker function. I agree with people using their keep votes to chide nominators. I've seen it over and over again. People go through saying, not just "keep," but "keep! you obviously know nothing about this" (suggesting that only experts may determine if they've learned about a topic from the article or not?) or "keep! deletionist trolls" (common in the school debates). Given that we've recently had an RfC launched because of someone nominating to VfD, I think it's important to clamp down hard here. Debate the article, not the person, as the person is generally not part of the matter. Also note that I personally always advocate voting on the article, not the topic. Because this is a Wiki, it's as easy to delete an article and wait for a knowledgeable person to recreate it as it is to preserve a misinforming thing and wait for a knowledgeable person to see it, not get disgusted with us, and fix it. That's why I would be willing to say delete to the whole article for the lack of significance in what is stated. Geogre 15:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the problem is that you dispute the claim of tallest, then why not just change the article to "some claim it is the tallest" rather than vote to delete an article on a major, well known structure?
  • Also, we did not have a Request for Comments launched because of someone nominating VfD, we had an RfC launched because someone responded in a hostile manner to four different users making a good faith effort to communicate a concern to him. (Blanking four separate polite attempts to communicate without response, then proceeding to continue the action of concern.) The fact that it was VfD nominations that we wanted to talk about is merely a conincidental fact. The request was "Hey, this person won't communicate with us... is there something wrong here?" and is the first step in dispute resolution when someone rebuffs multiple good faith efforts to communicate. --Unfocused 16:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete question mark over its claim to notability. JamesBurns 03:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fuck WP:RPA. Grue 14:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 53 Google hits = non notable. JamesBurns 11:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Radiant_* 11:27, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a notable stucture and a case where the google test fails miserably. Kappa 20:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I dont know the mosque, it is in the middle of the area of Karachi which I seem to recall has a particularly large number of people of importance as residents; its not precisely, therefore, a common or garden place of worship. Note Though I dont feel strongly about this particular example, I strongly caution against applying the Google test where it might be inapplicable (a) because of poor internet penetration (b) because of language differences - we dont know whats on the urdu pages and (c) where there are several alternate spellings of proper nouns. As an example, I googled Gulzari Lal Nanda, my preferred spelling for a former Indian PM, and got a mere 400 results. So be warned! Hornplease 05:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a notable building. Also sometimes spelled Masjid e Tuba (at least in my guide book, though not much presence on Google - you can find more hits under Tooba Mosque, however, which all goes to show that there are some things you can't trust Google for). — Asbestos | Talk 00:45, 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?) 13:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wazir Mansion (Karachi)

[edit]

Is this notable enough to include in Wikipedia? If it is, it needs to be cleaned up to a higher standard. Donovan Ravenhull 11:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Heck ... Since this shows up as a hyperlink in Wikipedia's Karachi page, you might as well give some starting point to whoever clicks on it - Nav

Keep: the former resident is notable in Pakistani historySaga City 11:43, May 27, 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?) 13:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.

[edit]

Vanity and promotional. Article created by Mlprater which seems to be Matthew L. Prater, an employee of the law firm [21]. Edcolins 12:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Xcali 14:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO, vanity doesn't apply to real world, brick & mortar businesses. They're either notable enough, or they're not. This one is, by my judgement; two offices, 60 attorneys, . I don't like the probable connection between the original author and the firm, but as long as it's written NPOV, I don't see a problem. --Unfocused 14:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 60 employees or attorneys in a firm do not necessarily make it notable. The supermarket around the corner might well have more than 60 employees and most are not notable. The question should be "Has this law firm achieved anything particular, which makes it worth being integrated into an encyclopedia?" Nothing in the article indicates that something particular was achieved. Wikipedia should probably not become a business directory or the like. --Edcolins 15:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment 60 employees in a supermarket won't have Juris Doctor or Master of Law degrees, now, will they? I find this firm notable enough. I respect that you don't, but your comparison isn't a balanced one. --Unfocused 22:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Well 60-lawyer litigation firms aren't usually very big. This is a pretty lean firm, they don't do litigation. Their claim to fame, for me, is their ratings, which are high. They're definitely notable within their field of patent prosecution--dotting i's, crossing t's and pushing patent applications through for their clients. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Have a look at what Tony Sidaway found. They're clearly at the top of their specialized upmarket, big money field. They certainly are more notable than I thought. --Unfocused 03:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I maintain my position. Being rated number one in a specialized ranking is not an achievement in the context of an "encyclopedia". An encyclopedia is a compendium of synthetic knowledge susceptible to be useful in the context of education (παιδεια = "education"). The lawyers at the firm are probably doing a pretty good job, but they are just doing their job. The article does not indicate any significant achievement. A definitive no no. --Edcolins 15:49, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • That is special pleading. We have grounds for inclusion and they emphatically do not include any educational requirement. Such grounds as do exist have been amply satisfied. You just made up the idea that there should be some educational function to including an item in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not write as if you were representing the whole wikipedian community. As a wikipedian, I also claim to be part of the "we" you refer to. In the absence of any clear boundary between what should be part of wikipedia and what shouldn't, I find it reasonable to refer to the common meaning of "encyclopedia". From what I read from Wikipedia is not a vanity press, wikipedia policy especially refers to the origin of the word "encyclopedia" with a specific mention of the word "education". I do not find unreasonable to interpret this as "We have grounds for inclusion and they implicitly include an educational requirement (in the broad sense in which this term is used)." You will probably argue that the sentence "[Wikipedia] should contain only material that some definable group of people might want to know" follows. This is however a cyclical criterion since the verb "know" should be construed in view of the meaning of encyclopedia, otherwise tomorrow's weather, dictionary definitions and any information found in a business directory would fall within "material that some definable group of people might want to know". --Edcolins 17:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Frjwoolley 15:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without further indication of achievements/notability. Being among the first patent lawyers in intellectual property is well and good, but it's rather meaningless (except for advertising), if they haven't actually done anything significant. Geogre 18:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. I've checked again, and the article still doesn't provide the statistics or cases that would make them notable. Please, I want to change my vote. I think they probably are notable, but so far the article doesn't provide any information on that. Geogre 15:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, the article does now contain a reference in a trade journal showing the notability of this firm. You're now asking someone to go off and do what would be original research in order to make a decision for himself (rather than reporting a source in the field) on whether the firm merits its clear notability. No dice. We can do without your vote to keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The internet seems to indicate that Woessner in particular is a BSD in the field. Pcb21| Pete 15:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 21:31, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
    • Keep, they do appear to be one of the big US IP law firms. --W(t) 02:42, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
      • They are not a big IP law firm. As Tony Sidaway put it above, "Well 60-lawyer litigation firms aren't usually very big. (...)" Each and every IP firm could most probably be rated in one of these obscure magazine ratings which abound. --Edcolins 08:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you've misread me, which is my fault. I said that 60-lawyer litigation firms aren't big, but I have remarked that this firm doesn't do litigation. This is a lean firm, undoubtedly, but one that is big in its field. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rated (2005) #1 US patent lawyers for chemical patents, #2 for computer and software patents, #3 for electrical patents, #2 for medical patents. These guys are heavy hitters. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, but I'd like a little more information on who PatentRatings LLC are, apart from their connection to LexisNexis. There are thousands of organisations that rate companies for promotional purposes only. Anyway, if they're such a wonderful law firm, I'm sure they've done some very high profile cases. Can anyone find any of those? That would certainly convince me of their notability. --W(t) 00:35, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
    They're not litigators, they just file claims with the patent office. I take your point about PatentRatings, but we don't evaluate sources in that way. I've given a reference in an IP trade journal that cites PatentRatings as a source, and clearly the firm Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. is (rightly or wrongly) regarded as a major force in patent prosecution. That is all we can do as an encyclopedia. Let's not get dragged into OR just to establish whether the IP trade journals are being misled. The company is unequivocally notable because it has been noted by a relevant trade journal as a leader in the field. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care if the IP trade journals are being misled, merely whether they're notable. I was mainly looking at the marketwire link, but the IP law & business one is a lot more credible yes. Fair enough. --W(t) 02:42, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • If this were a computer games company of similar stature, it wouldn't get listed here.
    • That doesn't mean it shouldn't. --Edcolins 08:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Easily passes external verfiability thresholds, obvious keep. Pcb21| Pete 12:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on Tony Sidaway's research. Uppland 17:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insert "slippery slope" argument here, followed by "camel's nose in tent" argument. What prevents hundreds of law firm in the world from each claiming some "remarkable" niche? Maybe it belongs in Who's Who, but probably not Wikipedia. What possible purpose does this article serve that could not be served by a simple external link to the firm's web page, and why would even such a link be acceptable? Lupinelawyer 03:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper and it is not a traditional encyclopedia. Some people need to open their minds. If Wikipedia is to be the world's foremost compendium of knowledge, it goes without saying (but I'll blabber on anyway) that there will be articles on topics some people do not consider notable. But if there is any topic that anybody might just possibly perhaps someday somehow decide they might just be slightly somewhat kinda interested in, there should be an article here. Nelson Ricardo 18:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Law Firm. Klonimus 08:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I couldn't have put it better myself. We're supposed to produce neutral, verifiable information. It's a bit pointless deleting encyclopedia entries that provide that. It's a waste of our time even considering doing that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concurr I'm getting so tired of VfD being used for emergency cleanup. VfD is about is the subject of an article is encyclopedic. A 60 person law firm that is considdered important in the world of patent litigation is notable, in a way that a 2 man personal injury firm is not. Klonimus 09:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, given this support, we should start substubs for every possible law firm in the world that might be considered notable in some way! Largest five firms in any of 80 different kinds of law, for each city/state/country, biggest wins/losses in each type of law and in every court, oldest firms, newest firms, longest names, biggest salaries, biggest idiots, etc. Of course, because they are "notable", the articles will be immune from VfD. Lupinelawyer 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. If you want to. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Stuff only appears here if someone wants it to. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sixty lawyers is a good size for a specialty firm - they probably employ hundreds of people all-told (in addition to the lawyers, there will be plenty of secretaries, office managers, accountants, investigators, etc.). Also, Lexis rankings are probably a very reliable measure, as they are one of the 2 big legal research providers. -- BD2412 talk 20:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 13:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Acorn

[edit]

NN. Karol 12:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

delete it's already in the school article, delete.--Sophitus 13:52, May 27, 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 16:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inanimate

[edit]

This is a dictdef Karol 12:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. bainer (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chatwin

[edit]

Delete. Vanity. Amusing vanity, but vanity nonetheless qitaana 13:06, May 27, 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) 04:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leah Parcell

[edit]

According to Google there's no such person. Details seem to be a mixture of other people's lives. For example, Leah Purcell is an Australian actress but has never appeared in Diff'rent Strokes. The whole article should be deleted as gibberish (and possibly replaced by a stub about the real Leah Purcell).

Al Clark 13:22, 27 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) 04:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proness

[edit]

Dictionary definition of slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang guide. Best, Meelar (talk) 13:41, May 27, 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 16:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sparkie

[edit]

I don't see how this could ever evolve into an encyclopedic article. It is just a bit of uninformative trivia. Sarg 13:44, 27 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 --cesarb 16:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bazrey

[edit]

I think this is a rather non-notable nickname. Sjakkalle 13:56, 27 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 --cesarb 16:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robert McCrae

[edit]

This looks like nonsense to me, especially the bit with the Essay Builder. Googling the gentlemen's name with his invention returns zero results. I think it should be deleted. Akerkhof 14:06, 27 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mechanical restoration

[edit]

No content. Cannot be made a sub-stub as there is no information at all related to mechanical restoration. Cannot make a redirect to restoration as mechanical restoration links from there. Jay 14:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — there's nothing at all about refurbishing old furniture or fixing up an old car? Seems like there should be a boat-load, unless I completely misunderstand this. :) — RJH 15:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Material is already well covered. Follow the "related topics" links, and you'll see. If we're talking about hanging onto this in the hopes that it will contain information, then we need to debate the naturalness and usfulness of the title. To me, this title is not at all a natural search. Geogre 18:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep potential for expansion. JamesBurns 11:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it adds nothing new and in fact the article creates a loop back to itself from the disambig page. The work done is better covered in another article and the disambig page was modified to reflect this. Vegaswikian 06:49, 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. Not much activity here, but there seems to be little controversy about this decision.--CSTAR 15:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afshar Experiment and the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

[edit]

Page is unnecessary spinoff of an already controversial page regarding current research, Afshar experiment. CSTAR 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song)

[edit]

This is a cover of the Jackson 5 song, which already has an article at "I'll Be There". Although it's not yet official Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs policy, songs that are recorded by more than one artist have one article which discusses all major versions of the song, and uses compound infoboxes (examples: "Radio Ga Ga" and "I Heard it Through the Grapevine"). I was going to go ahead and merge and disambiguate with no redirects, but I wanted to get a consensus first before I did so. FuriousFreddy 14:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (Note I've written a merged article, which is up at I'll Be There/temp) --FuriousFreddy 02:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Number 1 hit song for more than a week and nominated for a grammy. — RJH 15:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to I'll Be There. I think the article is keepable, but since it's the exact same song, it'd probably be better all in one article. -- Grev -- Talk 15:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think a merge would be good for either article. Both articles identify the song as the same one and there are mutual links. I don't want to see the Jackson 5 article swamped by the Mariah Carey statistics, which are in themselves encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate, especially since it's a #1 song, also seems to be part of a Mariah Carey wikiproject. Kappa 15:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do not merge these two articles. As mentioned above, we are in the middle of a Mariah Carey wikiproject, and as Tony Sidaway mentioned, merging these two articles will not enhance either of them and will bring down the overall quality of the articles. OmegaWikipedia 16:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with I'll Be There. Articles on songs should cover notable versions of the song. The Wikiproject can link to the article which should mention that Mariah Carey had a number one hit with it. We should have a consistent policy for songs and perhaps we should have a policy forum to decide one. We shouldn't have one rule for Mariah Carey cover versions and one for everybody else. Capitalistroadster 18:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, separate of the Jackson 5 entry. Mike H 19:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Having an article on every song ever recorded by Mariah Carey is ludicrous. This is even more fanboyish than Everyking's Ashlee Simpson obsession. RickK 20:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, articles on hit singles are important. I'm not familiar with the Mariah Carey project; are they really writing articles for *every* Mariah song? --FuriousFreddy 23:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes unfortunately *every* song. Megan1967 02:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse Me, Rick and Megan, but I really don't think you should be talking when you don't know exactly what you're talking about. The project is not about *every* Mariah Carey song, it's about all her single releases. And Rick, It's a bit rude too to be insulting Everyking and his Ashlee Simpson articles too. And Freddy, I'll Be There is one of the bigger and more remembered hits of Mariah's career. I understand the points mentioned about songs usually being put together, but as mentioned above, it is a project that we have been working on for some while, and they help to maintain the flow the of the Mariah Carey single articles, and merging would really disrupt it. OmegaWikipedia 06:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you aware that Everyking became so obsessive about the matter that it eventually went to the arbitratin committee, where he was forbidden from making any edits to Ashlee Simpson aticles? RickK 18:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure if it being one of Mariah's "bigger and more remembered hits" is a valid reason to keep it seprate from the other article, which is the Jackson 5's biggest and most remembered hit (and the biggest pre-1988 Motown hit ever).--FuriousFreddy 02:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and defer the policy making to the relevant Wikiprojects. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete, don't redirect, it isn't a logical search key. --W(t) 21:34, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Merge. I have a suggestion of my own. Use headings for each significant version—here, the Jackson 5 original and Mariah Carey's. Then, change links in all other articles to point either to the Jackson 5 section, the Mariah Carey section, or the main article, depending on context. Dale Arnett 21:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this sep please Yuckfoo 23:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with "I'll Be There". Megan1967 02:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are a fantastic set of articles and are well written, leave them alone and stop putting them on votes for deletion. A lot of hard work has been put into them, and this article should be left the way it is. Both this and the Jackson 5 article have relevant information and merging them is too much. This article is also too well written and factual to be deleted. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 13:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't want the article deleted; I suggested a merge (essentially a copy-paste job with the removal of redundant information). I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or undermine anyone's work. The purpose of me putting this on VfD was to get a consensus instead of simply going ahead and merging the articles without a consensus. --FuriousFreddy 21:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your point of view, but if you read both articles you'll find they have little to do with each other due to their separate impact and the huge difference between both acts and also there is too much information for a merge to make sense. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not exactly. Again, it's the same. exact. song. The only impact either really had is that they (both of them) were major #1 hit records. Should I jump the gun and merge it as an example? --FuriousFreddy 23:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 23:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've done a merge, located at I'll Be There/temp. Maybe seeing the example will help the situation. I expanded the information on both records, including correcting some information from both articles that was incorrect. --FuriousFreddy 00:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the example, but I think it demonstrates that separate articles are better. Kappa 10:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some songs like Dragostea Din Tei work with one, others need two. In this case two is better. Hedley 01:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, as per Rick. JamesBurns 11:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with above comments, merging the articles does not look good, and keeping them seperate is better SoSoDef 20:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is User:SoSoDef's second edit, the first of which was for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)--FuriousFreddy 22:55, 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 Special Romanian Unicode characters, transwiki others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

The pages in question are: Table of Unicode characters, 128 to 999, Table of Unicode characters, 1000 to 1999, Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999, Table of Unicode precomposed characters, Unicode 1-50, Unicode 51-75, Unicode 76-100, Unicode 101-125, Unicode 126-150, Unicode 151-175, Unicode characters 0-31, Unicode characters 32-63, Unicode characters 64-95, Unicode characters 96-127, Unicode characters 160-191, Unicode characters for the Arabic alphabet, and Special Romanian Unicode characters.

I think all of these belong in Wikisource because they are not encyclopedic (and probably mostly auto-generated anyway). But at the very least, many of them should be merged together; some of them overlap. — Timwi 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please folks, before casting a summary vote:
  • Read Special Romanian Unicode characters. This is a genuine article about a special character encoding problem, with a tiny table.
  • I don't agree to mass execution of charset articles. In typical charset articles, there is a 128 entry table summarizing the charset which seems valid article content. Anyway, that would require separate VfDs or a policy discusson.
The other articles Timwis listed are indeed a stillborn attempt, strange selection of character ranges, etc.
Pjacobi 20:41, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. I just wonder on what basis User:Pjacobi, User:The Anome voted to keep only one and transwiki the rest!! Because of the difficulty of unifying versus separating charcters?! If it's the case, than the same applies to many others. Cheers and respect -- Svest 01:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
Unicode characters 160-191 etc. are only subsets of the offical Unicode code charts, no article prose was written, and it may be hard, but not impossible to make this into an article. OTOH Special Romanian Unicode characters already is a (short) article. And ISO 8859-10, KOI8-U, or Kamenicky encoding -- to name a few -- are also articles, and I'd consider it a needless exercise in purity to force removing their charset tables. --Pjacobi 15:42, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
This is what I talked about. The same applies to many others. One is Unicode characters for the Arabic alphabet! Could you please recheck if it's prose or no prose? It's not about being short, prose or whatever, it's about their usage. I use that almost daily and I would not like to look for it somewhere else, just like you do. Cheers -- Svest 21:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, yes, Unicode characters for the Arabic alphabet has potential, too, but in its current state, almost all important information is missing, let alone the difficult points. And the table formatting is abyssimal. Keep that one, too. --Pjacobi 12:19, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Year 292,471,208,678 problem

[edit]

Little more than a silly joke - arguably it could be speedied. It's certainly not a problem. sjorford →•← 15:37, 27 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 --cesarb 16:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formmail

[edit]

Delete We don't need an article for every email client, and this article isn't even correct. emacs has an email client, but started out as an editor. (It's like saying it's an experimental computer psychologist because it has Eliza built in). It says it's a frame but clients don't provide framework. Delete this article so that if someone wants they can write a good one. Wikibofh 15:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Formmail and Union Cab are additional entries by this user that are currently up for VfD Wikibofh 21:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I was torn on whether to VfD this myself. Delete. --W(t) 18:32, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Delete Xcali 19:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to form letter might be appropriate here, but I'm not sure if it's a common enough way of writing that. Meelar (talk) 21:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article is attempting to describe Matt Wright's FormMail.pl, then it's likely that it is a moderately notable subject. FormMail.pl was the first widely-distributed CGI script to allow Web developers to add email-sending features to Web sites ... unfortunately, it also has a long, nasty history of security bugs allowing spammers to abuse any server with it installed, to send spam. If you ever got spam that started with the message "Below is the result of your feedback form", it was sent through an insecure FormMail.pl script. --FOo 03:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is fine; Comment: This article makes no sense and does not accurately describe the FormMail program. I could flesh it out into a real article, complete with information on spin offs, security holes and drop-in replacement options if desired (it has been downloaded a few million times). Not sure if that is appropriate coming from the author of the program. It would currently be linked to from two other Wikipedia pages which mention the script: Distributed Server Boycott List and E-mail spam. --MattWright 08:37, Jun 5, 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 as currently written. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hans Nusslein, and other empty pages devoid of bio content but with redirect to page on Professional Tennis Championships

[edit]

a tennis player with no bio information given at all and redirected to an article on a tennis circuit. several such empty pages exist redirected to the same article - shall put them for deletion vote presently - Mayumashu 04:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wrote an initial article about Nusslein. So this is a NO vote for deletion. Hayford Peirce 18:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone who beat Tilden deserves an article. Noel (talk) 05:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This whole Wikipedia bit about redirects etc. can be very confusing. What I *want* to say is this: keep the link between Hans and the Pro Championship listings. Do *not* delete the link or the Hans article. Hayford Peirce 06:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion should be listed at WP:RFD. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:14, May 27, 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 invalid listing; now on WP:RFD. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welby Van Horn

[edit]

same case as Hans Nusslein

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was invalid listing; now on WP:RFD. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clark Graebner

[edit]

same case as Hans Nusslein

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 action (incomplete nomination and article never existed) --cesarb 16:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Howard Kinsley

[edit]

Incomplete nomination. Abstain. Radiant_* 20:30, May 27, 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. I realize five hours is short for a VfD discussion, but the subject's notability has been established, the nomination was withdrawn, and there is clear consensus. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:51, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oakley (fashion)

[edit]

This small eyeware copany does not seem in any way encyclopedic. The only link is to the companies own site. Google hits seem solely for sales outlets. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Delete. DES 18:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely Strong Keep Oakley is a "small company"?! They're pretty much a household word (in the US at least) and probably the most famous sunglass company in the world. Lots of their own stores, and strong presence in chains like Sunglass Hut, etc. 1,730,000 Google hits (yes, that's 1.7 MILLION) for Oakley +sunglasses! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable company and fashion trend-setter. Wouldn't Google hits seem solely for sales outlets, when there are 1.7 million hits as Starblind says, imply that this company has a rather large volume of sales? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NYSE listed company, symbol OO.[23] $1 billion market cap, annual revenues in the $125-150 million range. This is what we are calling a "small eyeware company"? Maybe move to Oakley, Inc.. --Tabor 20:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NYSE listed company. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known global company. Mindmatrix 21:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a stub, but a good one. And Oakley is certainly notable and encyclopedic. A Man In Black 22:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Publicly listed company notable for sunglasses. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this does not belong here on vfd Yuckfoo 23:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw while I am not fully convinced of the encyclopedic nature of this company, it seems that I didn't do my research as well as I should have. I encountered this entry while fixing accessory, and noted a comment on the discussion page questioning its encyclopedic status. My inital research seemed to me to support that doubt. The emerging consensus seems clear, and I hereby withdraw my nomination. I do think that additional materiel to make clear just why this company is encyclopedic should be added to the article. DES 23:54, 27 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 - no consensus - SimonP 22:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

1T-SRAM

[edit]

"MoSys has not released any solid information on their 1 T-SRAM." Vaporware. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Xcali 19:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain Information may be missing, but there are numerous accounts of this technology being used in Gamecube and their newest upcoming console. I suggest making the corrections and additions neccessary, and keep the article. For reference, I logged onto the site searching specificly for information on this item. -- Ritz 14:28, 08 June 2005
  • Delete. This is vaporware (in development for five years), and not notable vaporware like Duke Nukem Forever. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • 1T-SRAM is not vaporware, as it is used in the Gamecube. --Pezezin 12:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search seems to confirm this, though it makes me wonder why this information is not in the article (and speculatory stuff like will be used in the Revolution is). Change vote to Abstain pending cleanup or verification. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 15:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up Joey.dale 03:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not an electronic parts catalog. There's no indication that this part is in any way significant. The manufacturer's website provides little evidence of notability, since it is advertizing. Quale 06:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speculation about a vaporous product that would be only marginally notable anyway. CDC (talk) 05:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I did do a little editing on it, but I'm jumping on the bandwagon - delete StopTheFiling June 2, 2005
  • Keep the article has been much improved since it was nominated. - SimonP 22:18, 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 delete. CDC (talk) 23:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dawn Sheppard

[edit]

Sounds like a nice enuf kid, just not encyclopedic yet. Seems to be from the same folk that produced the similar valentine to Rebecca Gunter, VfDd above. Niteowlneils 19:54, 27 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 (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of ancient Egypt mysteries

[edit]

Only provides questions, no information. All the answers we have, can be found in existing articles Delete. Mgm|(talk) 20:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • It is a listings for quick reference. There are no concrete answers to the questions in the list (that is why they are a mystery). There are several good books on this topic [like the one in the reference section]. PS. Some of the articles linked to are stubs, so you don't have the answers.

Within the five days

After the 5 days

  • Keep, I agree with Ron Falphin 22:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete William M. Connolley 23:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per RickK and JamesBurns. It's interesting, but not encyclopedic. Iam 10:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drini ☎ 18:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename and enlarge to other civilizations (precolombian, stonehenge), and questions (meaning of the mummies, use of the bitume, huge drawings, absence of monuments and art works for some of them -american indians for example, vikings-, why the conquistadors spared the macchu picchu when they arrived and so on..) bischar 19:53, Jun 12, 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?) 07:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:B2B

[edit]

Delete. Hard to sort through the text, but it's pretty clearly an advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 20:48, 27 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yahoo Bomb

[edit]

Neologism. --W(t) 21:13, 2005 May 27 (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) 04:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gaydolf Hitler

[edit]

Two reasons 1) unverifiable possible hoax see [24] 2) Even if verified, is a one episode appearance notable? --Doc (?) 21:25, 27 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/redirect (already done). CDC (talk) 23:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BT Broadband

[edit]

BT merits an article - but does a service it provides? This is just a list of prices --Doc (?) 21:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah it is in a ISP category. Some people may only want to find out about BT Broadband and not the other services. • Thorpe • 11:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add an external link to the prices on the main BT article if this is really needed. Prices are not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into BT Group plc,if keep then expand a little, and get rid of all the price nonsense. Falphin 20:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment someone has already merged this (including the prices) into the BT Group plc article --Doc (?) 20:48, 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. CDC (talk) 18:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2X

[edit]

This seems to be a subtler form of advertising. Mindmatrix 21:37, 27 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. CDC (talk) 18:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Offtopic.com

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability (or very much of anything else, for that matter). --W(t) 21:43, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

  • Yes, extremely short article with little content and see also links which relevance have not been explained. Looks like speedy material to me, but let's wait for a second opinion. Mgm|(talk) 21:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm pretty sure this page got speedy deleted once before today for having nothing but rubbish... and it seems to have made it's way back. I recall putting the speedy delete tag on it once myself... hmmm... yep... there it is in the history. It looks like User:SocratesJedi put a speedy on it as well at one point. SirGeneral 21:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I speedied a vandalised version earlier, but what was in the history was the same as what's up now. I prefer we keep it on VFD for now and not speedy it again, so we can find out if they deserve an article. Mgm|(talk) 22:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realize when I put on the speedy tag that there was content beyond the vandalism. It appears that this article is at the center of an editing war between a couple of users/anons. SirGeneral 22:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete. Why do you want to delete this article? We have a huge article about something awful, yes even a category. Offtopic is way bigger than something awful. And i forgot: Offtopic.com is the largest off-topic web forum in the world.
  • But the article isn't. I might be pursuaded to keep it, if some on-topic info on the site is provided so it becomes on actual article instead of a substub. Mgm|(talk) 22:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
   - No reason, no care
  • Delete. The number of random forums on the internet is almost unlimited, and this is significantly less notable than Something Awful. A Man In Black 22:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said before, it actually is the largest off-topic forum in the world. If you would give me some time I would expand the article so you'll se that there is way more to say about Offtopic.com. (Unsigned comment by User:24.154.77.212)
  • I suggest then that you create a user name and work on the page in your user space. No one would delete it if it was in your user space. 578 (Yes?) 22:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That begs the question: if the forum's purpose is to have discussion without the limitations of a stated topic, isn't it impossible to have off-topic discussions on that forum?
    Jokes aside, part of the purpose of VfD is to give people time to expand an article to show that it isn't fodder for deletion. As this article won't be deleted before June 3, why not take that time to expand it? A Man In Black 22:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is going to be the biggest page on Wikipedia, mark my words.
    The myth has now been explained also. (Unsigned comment by User:24.154.77.212)
  • Fantastic, thanks for the input. I'll be sure to file that away in my "Things I Don't Give a Crap About" notebook. (Unsigned comment by User:24.154.77.212)
  • Please don't take my comments as leave to fill the article with nonsense. Encyclopedic contributions are appreciated; nonsense just makes work for other Wikipedians, as it will need to be deleted. A Man In Black 23:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with unlimited paper, with don't have enough space for all the forums out there on the Net. Harro5 23:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --"I see a qualitative difference between the articles Offtopic.com and Something Awful, for example." Well the entire Something Awful article is about the main site, except for a small blurb about the forums. Offtopic doesn't have a main page, and all the content is driven through the forum. That said, it could be made better. A quick list with descriptions of all the sub-forums would be good. 98fordtaurus 24.154.77.212
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. CDC (talk) 18:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Captain seatac

[edit]

No imdb entry. Hoax? --W(t) 21:50, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

  • Apparently real [25] but not necessarily encyclopedic. No vote at this time. --Metropolitan90 00:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The show probably could have an article, though I would say that the character should be addressed on the show's page rather than a separate article. -- Jonel 03:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable show of regional interest, now defunct. No more encyclopedic than articles about individual radio disk jockeys' shows. RickK 21:56, May 28, 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Off-topic

[edit]

Dictdef. Anyone have a suggestion where this could be redirected to, if anything? --W(t) 21:56, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

How about a rubbish bin? InTheFullnessOfTime 21:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this would belong in the wiktionary, but more likely it's related the annoying Offtopic.com article... SirGeneral 22:03, 27 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) 04:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Dog

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --W(t) 22:26, 2005 May 27 (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?) 14:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dimensional Fund Advisors

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as advertising. Not a speedy candidate IMO. 17,300 google hits. [26]. Kappa 22:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Although Kappa has bit slap'd me for speedying stuff, this isn't one of them. They are a large firm, noted on Morningstar, and have been around for a while. I'd rather it didn't read like an ad or something from a press release, but don't know it well enough to fix it. Wikibofh 23:13, 27 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) 03:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Divine Order of the Fruit of the Loins of the Earth

[edit]

Nonsense. --W(t) 22:38, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

The article addresses its lack of sources and its non-verifiability! 70.187.215.8

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 22:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikilyrics

[edit]

Only claim to notability is incessantly spamming empty wikilyrics pages to the external links sections of articles. --W(t) 22:56, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising, wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Megan1967 02:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I run wikilyrics, made this article, and added several external links on wikipedia articles of artists. Let's discuss this here - I'm interested in knowing what is wrong with the situation. Maybe I do not fully understand wikipedia's rules. In my understanding, I see nothing wrong with linking artists to their pages on wikilyrics. Each artist category in wikilyrics actually links back to the respective page on wikipedia and I had thought the interwiki linking would make content/metadata easy for users to access. I only see this as helping both wikipedia and wikilyrics. Now - I see what you are saying about linking to categories which don't have much actual content on wikilyrics. In such cases, wikipedia is getting nothing out of the links while wikilyrics is getting wikipedia's visitors. Is there wikipedia policy about this somewhere? Could we say that wikipedia should only link to wikilyrics categories with at least, say...20 song lyrics pages? Give me some more information to work with. The goal was not to anger fellow wikipedians and spam the database. The goal was to create a wiki which provided free-content song lyrics with no ads and I thought mutual linkage between the sites would benefit everyone. Maybe I am wrong. If you wish, feel free to discuss this in my user talk as well. --Anthony5429 04:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you run wikilyrics, the article could be seen as "self-promotion", see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Megan1967 04:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are certain guidelines for linking, see Wikipedia:External links. I've posted that link to several anon users who were adding wikilyrics links and warned them but have always been ignored. Still, on the bright side, since you seem cooperative enough that probably means those anons were other people, which means wikilyrics must be taking off at least slightly. --W(t) 04:40, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep Wikilyrics is one of the most innovative and creative aspects I've seen here. It allows articles to be linked to lyrics, yet to keep up the theme of a Wikipedian style entry. The links are very useful and I am planning on linking lyrics in several articles. This is a great resource, and should not be deleted at all OmegaWikipedia 15:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your links to this spammer will be deleted. His site is also a major copyright violation and will probably get shut down at some point, just as lyrics.ch was. RickK 22:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep Is it not conceivable that someone interested in an artist enough to search for a wikipedia article would also want to see lyrics by this artist? Wikilyrics shares many of the same ideals and ethics as Wikipedia, this relationship can be mutually beneficial. Kafuffle 17:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it not conceivable that we object to this person spamming Wikipedia with links to his site? RickK 22:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    I have already voted but would also like to add a little more. Megan1967: I see what you are saying but want to mention that although I do run the site and have the actual webspace, wikilyrics is a public online community. Anyone is welcome to sign up and/or edit the database and if you take the time to look around, you will see that there are several users (44 right now) contributing to the site and it is not an outlet for self-promotion. In fact, please take a second to look at my Wikipedia User Page and Wikilyrics User Page; you will note that neither has significant information about who I am. I can therefore not be accused of self-promotion. The site was made to be a public, free-content, online wiki community where people could find lyrics to songs without the annoying ads and spyware conventional lyrics sites are accustomed to. I see interwiki linking between wikilyrics and wikipedia as only beneficial to both sites and the users of each. --Anthony5429 18:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant admitted self-promotion. It's also best that we don't have even the appearance of association with them if the music industry decides they're going to go on another round of shutting lyrics sites down for copyright infringement. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and on the Wikilyrics Main Page, he's exhorting his users to show up and vote to keep this article. That's not going to win you points here. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete. It's self promotion. It's advertising. This guy has been running through all the articles on musicians spamming them with links to this website. I even bothered to check out a couple -- one had lyrics for one song by the artist, the other didn't have any! Furthermore, putting that link on the Wikilyrics website to vote against the deletion? Geez. Alexa rank down in the 800,000's, and even the article mentions the site was started not even two months ago. Just because websites are open content, freely editable, etc. doesn't mean that Wikipedia should treat them any different. Spam is spam. CryptoDerk 20:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of reasons to zap this article, CryptoDerk. See my further comments and delete vote below. However, a low number of visitors who are sufficiently conformist, docile, uneducated, etc. to be using Windows plus the mediocre browser MSIE (both needed for "Alexa", the last time I looked) plus the "Alexa" spyware itself isn't a good reason to zap any article. -- Hoary 04:52, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. "started on April 6, 2005.", wiki has not established its notability, influence or longevity. Advertising. RickK 22:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    RickK, how long should a site be up before it is considered notable or expressing longevity? If it needs to be a certain age, I can repost this article in a set amount of time. I am not familiar with the policy - please fill me in. CryptoDerk, there are several stub articles on wikilyrics. There are, however, far more completed articles. You can look around if you wish. Cyrius, what is wrong with asking the users to vote against deletion of this article? I don't see anything wrong with that and it is not self promotion because the site does not promote me. Also, many wikipedia articles already link to lyrics sites so the copyright issue should not be brought up unless the site is included as a wikimedia project - which it is not. Wikipedia's disclaimer specifically says that it claims no affiliation with its content. That includes external links. Am I wrong? Also, please fill me in on the lyrics.ch incident - I am not familiar with it. Wikilyrics has a disclaimer on every page which credits the lyrics to their writer. Is that enough? One other thing - I stopped encouraging the users to add links to Wikipedia since some people see this as spamming. Please let me know what it takes to make wikilyrics notable and worthy of being linked to in wikipedia. I looked through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but saw nothing definitive on the subject. It would be extremely helpful if someone would come out and say, "you need x number of active users, x number of articles, and the site must be x months old." I'm trying to be helpful here - please give me some useful feedback. --Anthony5429 22:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 3 arguments for deletion of this article: copyright infringement, self-promotion, and lack of notoriety. With regards to copyright infringement, please see the Wikilyrics disclaimer. I have already posted my counter argument regarding self-promotion and why wikilyrics is not guilty of it. Above is my statement about lack of notoriety and concerning that, I honestly don't know enough information to make a strong point about it. --Anthony5429 02:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your "General disclaimer", to which you link above, is stunningly wrong-headed. You say you're not a lawyer. Neither am I. But I am capable of reading simple explanations of copyright law written for laymen. Aren't you capable too -- or do you just choose to not to read this stuff and instead to rely on wishful thinking? Nobody has said that your site needs more "notoriety" to get an article here. They have said that it needs to be notable. Of course, notability includes true notoriety -- murder one person and you're probably still a nobody, murder half a dozen and WP will write you up -- and large-scale copyright violation may eventually win your site notoriety. (My own guess is that it will wither away or be closed down first.) -- Hoary 04:46, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP is not a site directory. -- Hoary 04:46, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep: Wikilyrics is one of the most innovative and creative aspects I've seen here. It allows articles to be linked to lyrics, yet to keep up the theme of a Wikipedian style entry. The links are very useful and I am planning on linking lyrics in several articles. This is a great resource, and should not be deleted at all --Florian huber 06:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 4th edit. RickK 22:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert, non-notable, WP is not a web directory. Quale 08:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikilyrics is an open alternative resource to other commercial, advert-, error- and popup-full web sites, which make it a hard time for somebody looking for lyrics to find them; unlike them, wikilyrics allow any person interested in lyrics to find them quickly. If it is expanded and gets more popular, as we are expecting - it is not up for a long time yet -, it will allow us to create a directory of song lyrics, which can be very handy for open source multimedia software (imagine automated lyrics downloading using the built-in MediaWiki XML export, with, for instance, a plugin on XMMS). If we decide to delete the external links on song- and artist-related articles, at least I suggest that we kept the article about the website. --dionyziz 09:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC).
    Here's a proposition. Feel free to voice your opinions about it. Since I'm not getting definitive information about what it takes for WP to consider a site notable, how about we delete this article and I'll put it back up if and only if there are ever more than 5000 songs in the database and 100 users. If the site never reaches those goals or it is shut down because people believe it infringes on copyrights, I will not add the article back. If the goals are reached, I will add the article and instead of links which say (artist) Lyrics @ Wikilyrics, I will only add links which say (artist) Lyrics and furthermore, will instruct the wikilyrics users not to add the links if there is not substantial lyrics for the artist. Moreover, I will tell the users not to add the link if there is already a lyrics link on the article. I've seen that in several pages already where there are already external links to lyrics sites. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with this proposition. It's just a suggestion. Please tell me what you think. Again, I'm trying to be helpful. I'm not trying to spam WP. Interwiki linking should be beneficial to both sites. --Anthony5429 17:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My advice to you is not to waste any more of your time with Wikipedia. You've had a taste of how they operate. Mirror Vax 17:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "They"? Are you not a Wikipedia editor? But, Anthony, let me ask you a question. What would you do if I came over to your Wikilyrics site and began creating articles about subjects which had nothing to do with lyrics? Would you delete them, or would you welcome me with open arms and tell me that I'm doing a great job and to do more? If we have to follow the rules set on your site, why don't you have to follow the rules we've set on our site? RickK 22:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • We can't really make deals, otherwise everybody and their brother would be trying for one. However, if the article is deleted and you come back some time in the future when your site is more than just an interesting idea, I think you'll get a better reception. Unfortunately, as I write this, you have taken Wikilyrics completely offline due to the copyright issue, which isn't going to help with having a Wikipedia article. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Anthony has shut down the Wikilyrics site. He has written on the Main page:
Dear Fellow Wikilyrics User,
Several individuals have pointed out that Wikilyrics may not be fully legal. Therefore, I have temporarily shut it down. I will reopen it once someone can find definitive proof that using the following disclaimer on every song page prevents copyright infringement. If you have any information on the subject, please tell me in my Wikipedia User Talk Page. My apologies for the inconvenience.
Current Disclaimer: "The copyright of these lyrics belongs to their writer(s) and/or performer(s) and Wikilyrics does not claim ownership of these lyrics or their copyright."
-Tony
-RickK 22:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I will repost if the copyright issue is cleared up and the site becomes more popular. Wikilyricians, thanks for the suppport. Wikipedians, sorry for all the comotion. --Anthony5429 02:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a link to a site with copyvio... just doesnt look good. JamesBurns 10:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    After doing some looking around, I found out what I needed to know about the copyright issue. With some modifications to the disclaimer, that is now all cleared up and Wikilyrics is doing nothing illegal. Just thought I'd mention that. Again, you are welcome to delete this article. I will repost it a while from now when Wikilyrics has grown more and see if Wikipedia finds it notable then. Thanks for your help and sorry again for all the comotion. --Anthony5429 02:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promotion, article does not establish notability for this project. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertisement. - SimonP 22:23, 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 redirect CDC (talk) 18:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tse Tse Fly

[edit]

Actually an article about a song by Wall of Voodoo, from their first album; the fly itself - which is cool, and by cool I mean totally sweet [27] - is at Tsetse fly. Song is from group's first album, and is utterly un-notable; it was not a single, is not rare, was not a cultural meme, merely one song of several; it's certainly less notable than group's only hit, Mexican Radio, which is itself dubious. Entire text: Tse Tse Fly is a song by the band Wall of Voodoo. This song is one of Wall of Voodoo's goofiest songs. Some people who looked for Wall of Voodoo songs on the Internet found this song occasionally. I say either delete, or turn into a redirect for Tsetse fly.-Ashley Pomeroy 23:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heads Up!

[edit]

I honestly don't have the ability right now to research this one. Can some other folks check this one for notability, and if is notable, try and fix it up a bit. Donovan Ravenhull 15:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Album from well-known, notable Canadian band Death From Above 1979. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DoubleBlue. If you don't have time, I'm not sure why you feel there's an urgent need to get articles on VfD right away. Add it to your watchlist and deal with it later, or just slap a {{cleanup-importance}} on it, and wait a while. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Firstly it's not an album, it's a six track EP. I dont know why DoubleBlue qouted a press release from the band's website with "notable" - well I guess you can believe anything. Sorry but this release isnt that notable for inclusion. Megan1967 02:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, album (or near enough) from well-known band. Kappa 06:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. —Xezbeth 06:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability of the EP not established. JamesBurns 03:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Leanne 10:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real release by real band. CJCurrie 21:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real release by real band; as far as I know, the guiding policy for albums seems to be that if the band is notable enough to have an article, then their albums can have articles within the "albums" project. I don't buy the argument that individual songs are a comparable situation; it's easier to define what makes one song more notable than another (chart success, cultural context, etc.) than it is for albums, and song info merges into an album article much more easily than album info merges into a band bio. Bearcat 16:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable release from notable band. Kafuffle 23:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm trusting the above comments on the band's sufficient notability, albums by notable-enough bands get individual articles, and there is no reason to treat EPs differently from full length albums. Postdlf 23:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, an EP from a notable band is notable itself. SeventyThree 23:27, 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 delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are You Sure

[edit]

Anybody heard of this? Does it need a redirect to an artist or albumn? Donovan Ravenhull 11:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I can't verify the info but it claims to be "a hit single for the band So, reaching the top 30 singles in the US". DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Deleted personal attack RickK 22:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I resent you characterising this as a personal attack. It is simply a request for information without any malice. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Delete DarkBlue's reinsertion of the personal attack. RickK 21:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better question might be "Why did you add both a clean-up tag and a speedy delete? Shouldn't clean-ups be for things that won't be deleted?"  The Steve  13:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • The band So doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. Googling produces no useful evidence given how common the words "so" and "are you sure" are. Delete unless someone can produce verification of this band, of this song, and that it was a hit single. --Metropolitan90 01:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence this was a hit, no verification it reached the Top 30 singles chart. Megan1967 02:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research shows that it's a cut from the album Horseshoe in the Glove, the only So album released in the US. http://www.933flz.com/iplaylist/artist/22470/ says, ""Are You Sure," was a minor hit that built anticipation for a full LP.". No vote. RickK 22:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability of the song not established. JamesBurns 03:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering Rick's research I would suggest a merge to So (band) or even The Opposition (band), the group they formed from and returned to but those articles do not exist. Unless someone wants to create one, I vote delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:39, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stairway to Harlem

[edit]

nonsense only 7 hit on google [28] 578 (Yes?) 23:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable song that doesn't seem to have an artist who wants credit for it. Harro5 23:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable hoax. Part of what may be a forum invasion from Offtopic.com (see also the VfD for that page. A Man In Black 23:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tried finding references to it because of the Offtopic.com page, but seems to be nothing. If it is notable, provide some links citing reactions, some kind of news coverage... at least something to indicate it had more attention on the web than it's getting at this VfD. SirGeneral 23:24, 27 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 as redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of biomedical topics, A to E

[edit]

I have broken this list into five separate pages since it was too long, and redirected the pages that link to this page to List of biomedical terms. David D. 23:12, 27 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 as redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of biomedical topics, F to J

[edit]

I have broken this list into five separate pages since it was too long, and redirected the pages that link to this page to List of biomedical terms. David D. 23:27, 27 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 as redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of biomedical topics, K to O

[edit]

I have broken this list into five separate pages since it was too long, and redirected the pages that link to this page to List of biomedical terms. David D. 23:34, 27 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 as redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of biomedical topics, P to T

[edit]

I have broken this list into five separate pages since it was too long, and redirected the pages that link to this page to List of biomedical terms. David D. 23:37, 27 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 as redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of biomedical topics, U to Z

[edit]

I have broken this list into six separate pages since it was too long, and redirected the pages that link to this page to List of biomedical terms. David D. 23:40, 27 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) 03:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silver Knights

[edit]

An article with three lines of content and then a splurge of gaming instructions. Someone will have to argue very well to persuade me of how game controls are encyclopedic. Harro5 23:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry it began so small. I should have marked it as a stub... Sorry I am new to wikipedia. But I have several people working to expand this article and make it more informative. Skolympus 23:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Any recovery of this article would need to begin by deleting or transwiking all of the dry game control stuff...after that, I just can't see notability for a freeware game that has been in beta for two and a half years now. A Man In Black 09:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references for claims of notability. (Actually no references at all.) As noted, game controls are not encyclopedic. Quale 16:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone actually turns into a solid article that explains why the game is notable (and "large fanbase and huge potential" just won't do) -- right now it reads like an incomplete instruction manual instead of an encyclopedia article. -- Captain Disdain 23:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely pointless as it stands.--Ian Pitchford 22:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or shortened, made informative and purged of specific game-control information. Citizen Premier 15:37, 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. CDC (talk) 18:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lauren Tolstoi

[edit]

Vanity or something in that region. --W(t) 23:50, 2005 May 27 (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. CDC (talk) 18:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ipublicon

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a cyrstal ball and looks to be advertising Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:54, May 27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_27&oldid=1234127095"