Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 30[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. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

frivilent[edit]

The article states that the word is "not found in a dictionary". Quite right. And if one excludes Wikipedia as a source, it's not to be found on Usenet or the World Wide Web, either (except in a handful of cases where people mis-spell frivolent). Since this is not a word, there's no person/place/concept/thing to be treated in an encyclopaedia article by this title, not any reasonable place for a redirect. Going by the creation date, I'd say that at least one New Year's Eve drunkard thought it a hoot to get their made up word into the dictionary by putting it into the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 23:44, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if were a real slang term, that would make it a neologism or dictdef. --Wahoofive 01:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete agreement. -Casito 01:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dilete as it hasn't gined inny nitoriety. -- Hiary, 30 Mir 2005 (ITC)
  • Delete: Now you know why they call it "dope." Geogre 06:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real information, just someone's attempt to invent a meaning for a misspelling. jni 08:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, frivolous neologism. Barno 17:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete for above reasons. TAS 17:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and allow for organic decay. --GRider\talk 18:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Mulch time! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete imaginary word. —Seselwa 09:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't think of any possible reason to Keep.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

21RED[edit]

Run of the mill Vanity Page. (Wikipedia:Vanity_page) Middle School Rock Band. Does not pass Google test. -Casito 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Bless them for giving it a go, but let other people explain the group after they have demonstrated some social or musical significance. Geogre 06:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though the band is "highly recommended". -- Deadcorpse 06:13, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Influence or success are what are needed for an encyclopedia article, recommendations are what a music agent or talent scout is looking for (and then it depends strongly on who is doing the recommendation). Average Earthman 08:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, best of luck to the band, though. Dsmdgold 14:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 09:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not least because the bands name is a Libelous stealing of a 21 Red ( http://www.21red.co.uk/ ) --Irishpunktom\talk 15:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Kincaid[edit]

Run of the mill Vanity Page. (Wikipedia:Vanity_page) Does not pass Google test. -Casito 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Heavens, I remember that age (with shame) when your #1 concern with guitar playing is whether you have the kewelest equipment or not, and you stare at rock stars to see what they have. One gets over it, or one goes to work in a guitar shop and works on that Yngwe Malstrom songbook. Vanity. Geogre 06:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as much as I care about Jeremy Kincaid's guitar specs, I can't say this belongs here. -- Deadcorpse 06:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Guitarist for school rock band. Average Earthman 08:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 09:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants. – ABCD 02:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mindy the Mermaid[edit]

Uh.... wha? What makes people think that stuff like this is a good idea? Ketsy 01:00, 30 Mar 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frensham school[edit]

Advertising of a non-notable school (250 Google) with some signs of vanity included. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

not sure how the google search was done - my search came up with 9,480 hits!?! --AYArktos 00:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With quotes. —Korath (Talk) 00:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
use of quotes in search not appropriate - the school is usually referred to just as "Frensham" - for example: CV of sculptor, Sydney Morning Herald Article & obituary of former pupil published by Australian Press Council
  • Delete: Random private school, although I did have to bite my fingers to keep from typing some awful things about their school motto. Geogre 06:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into articela about its location (Southern Highlands, New South Wales?) and delete - Skysmith 08:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete very small and not notable school in otherwise large city. -Casito 08:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article. Frensham is a notable NSW girls school and its Sturt school is notable for its craft program especially in textiles. The appropriate location is Mittagong for merging which doesn't have an article although the Southern Highlands does. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Good grief, I see what Geogre means. Not sufficiently distinguishable from other schools to warrant own article. Delete. Slac speak up! 09:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not every school holds an annual Australian Forum for Fibre Textiles Conference. Kappa 10:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable school. Radiant_* 11:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The age of the institution may make it notable for that region of the world. The tone appears neutral to me so I would not ding it as an advertisement. -- Glen Finney 13:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The school's motto is "In love serve one another". Not a tennis reference but probably not what Geogre and Slac are thinking. Dirty old men, like me. No vote, although the conference doesn't appear notable enough to justify Kappa's argument. Barno 17:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My argument is a response to "not sufficiently distinguishable" Kappa 17:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed; I simply don't share the opinion that hosting the AFFTC is so influential or significant to make this article WP-worthy. I'll change my vote if Kappa provides persuasive evidence. Barno 20:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • After Capitalistroadster added a list of noteworthy alumnae, I now vote weak Keep. The article is now better than most school articles on WP and establishes at least some significance, although more for its graduates than its programs ("Sturt craft centre has an Australian reputation as a centre for the crafts" impresses me little) or the conference it hosts. Barno 16:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow organic growth. This institution is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper. --GRider\talk 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial. Trivial is the opposite of encyclopedic. —Korath (Talk) 18:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr 19:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit as necessary.--BaronLarf 19:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I suspect, but can't prove, that the original version of the article was a copyvio. --Carnildo 21:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yet another lamentable nomination of a school. Wincoote 01:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. With quite a substantial bit on the history of the school (which won't change in the next 2 years, as opposed to the ranking or the recent results of the school team), this is what I think a decent and keepable school article can look like. And 1913 is probably quite old for Australia. / Uppland 05:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Dr Zen/keepschools —RaD Man (talk) 06:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added further to the article. In summary, the claims for notability for this school include:
    • Leading Australian photographer Harold Cazneaux took 100 photographs of the school published in 1934; the National Library of Australia used these photos as part of an exhibition on his art;
    • S.E. Emilsen wrote another book on the school in 1988;
    • Rosemary Foot, a former Deputy Leader of the NSW Liberal Party in the 1980's - Foot was the first woman to hold a leadership position in the lower house for a major party in Australia;
    • five notable award-winning authors attended the school; and
    • the Sturt craft centre has an Australian reputation as a centre for the crafts;

All of these facts are now included in the article. Capitalistroadster 10:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. What RaD Man said.--Gene_poole 01:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this school's article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable school Klonimus 06:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a notable school - well known within Australia --AYArktos 00:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. notable australian school. clarkk 03:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - AS with all Schools, worthy of a mention. Google test is not the be all and end all. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. — PhilHibbs | talk 15:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caste Football[edit]

Wikipedia is not a (racist) web directory. CDC (talk) 02:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is not racist, but rather about a site that at least deals with the issue of "race". I think it could warrant a neutrality dispute page however.

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory for every fringe website out there. An article on Race in U.S. sports could be very interesting, though, if done well. According to Google, there seem to be about five unique websites linking to this page, and all of them look pretty suspicious (white supremacist tinges). --Fastfission 03:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Let this web site have a good Alexa number, and then talk to us about it. Otherwise, if there is anything more bankrupt and corrosive than the concept of race, it's the concept of caste. Geogre 06:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fringe website. Average Earthman 08:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (with reservarions) If someone wants to attempt a complete blank and rewrite, it migh pass. Otherwise, no. -Casito 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Tone of article leans to POV. Article entity is also of questionable notability, though further editting and expansion might show why it should remain. However, on balance I say delete. -- Glen Finney 13:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and racist. If Wikipedia has an article that lists known "white power" websites (a tricky thing to do from a NPOV perspective), then this might merit inclusion there. It certainly doesn't deserve an article of its own. Firebug 00:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not it's racist, it's not a notable website. RickK 05:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nasty racist stuff. This article would need some heavy modification if it was to meet the requirements of a neutral point of view. It could be done, but as the article stands at the momment, until there is a decent ammount of modification done, my vote is to delete. Oliver Keenan 16:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete garbage. —Seselwa 09:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Racism Pure and simple --Irishpunktom\talk 15:22, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steini[edit]

Vanity page. Delete. Andrew pmk 02:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unverifiable. bbx 03:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I googled Steini + FC Bayern München and I did get some results, unfortunately all in a language I don't speak (German?). I think the article may be true, but I cannot tell if he is a notable player and deserves a page of his own. Maybe somebody here can decipher that language and inform us. Until then, I have no vote. -- Deadcorpse 06:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm seriously dubious about this. Although footballers with silly names does happen (e.g. Paul Gascoigne changing his name to 'G8'), I think we require a cite of a Bundesliga game with this individual on the team sheet to believe it. Delete if not forthcoming (and I'm not holding my breath). Average Earthman 08:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bayern Munich -Casito 08:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The google hits seem to indicate that this is a hoax. Steini appears to be a Bayern Fan who frequently posts in various forums. Martg76 16:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, I vote Delete. -- Deadcorpse 17:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's as User:Martg76 says; must be the last Bayern Munich fan left in Germany :-) Lectonar 10:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, vanity. VladMV ٭ talk 15:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • StronglyDelete.--Sina 21:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a hoax and vanity page. No Steini at the official Bayern Munich squad page.--Spike 23:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "He was born in Eskifjordur in Qatar, but he moved to the capital, Doha, few years later to play football for Vesturbæjarstórveldið KR." I didn't know Qatar had Icelandic place names. Delete. —Seselwa 09:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to broad-spectrum antibiotic. Sjakkalle 08:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Broad spectrum antibiotic[edit]

No content other than title and misspelled words. Delete. Andrew pmk 02:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Leet. —Korath (Talk) 00:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

D00d[edit]

Leet speak; out of context and unencyclopedic. Delete. Andrew pmk 02:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's listed in leet speak. I've removed the particularly stupid parts of the article.
  • Redirect to Leet. bbx 03:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Leet. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • D0de, redirect is ok, but let's be sure that the leet article doesn't do something silly like wikilink all the terms. Geogre 05:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Guess so. We could always start redirecting to dude or to list of l33t words if that becomes a problem. I don't think W1kt10n4ry takes l33t as a language? Radiant_* 14:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • |23d1|23k7 70 Leet d00d5. Megan1967 07:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and shoot anybody who uses it. Average Earthman 08:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to leet to prevent a newbie from re-creating the page. -Casito 08:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transplant and allow for organic growth. --GRider\talk 23:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to leet. Slac speak up! 01:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I whole hartedly agree with Spinboy on this issue. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Xezbeth 18:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and transplant information from this article into [[[l33t]]] - this doesn't deserve an entry any more than the hundreds of other l33t words. They can all be listed on one page for my liking. Oliver Keenan 16:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to leet, no merge. It's one of the commoner "leet" terms. --Carnildo 22:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 08:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mau_Maus[edit]

Unencyclopedic, poorly written, POV. Delete. Andrew pmk 02:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fixed Link, Will Try For db since it sounds like someone flaunting their supposed gang affiliations. - Damicatz 02:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, gangs are not unencyclopedic. bbx 03:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Gangs are unencyclopedic if they're not verifiable, if their not significant, and if they have no historical importance. Since Mau Mau is a tribe, this title is downright silly. Since there are no references and no words in the article but a single, bald statement, there is nothing at all to redeem this. Predicate nominatives are not articles: they're facts, at most. A fact is not an article. Geogre 05:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • But it is verifiable, try google for it. Also there is an article on wp (Nicky Cruz) linking to Mau Maus. bbx 08:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's fine if it's an article. Really, it's not the gang thing, but the lack of references, the lack of discussion, the lack of anything at all except "was a gang." I'm a real hawk for substubs and have an itchy delete finger when it comes to them. If the article was generated simply to fill a link from Nicky Cruz, then it shouldn't have been attempted until the author had some information. I would like for the article itself to convince me of its worth by actually informing me and educating me on something. Verification could come from even a single citation. Geogre 03:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, trivial. Megan1967 07:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, gangs are encyclopedic if they are verifiable, significant, and have historical importance. I get 10,300 hits for ' "mau mau" gang "new york" " [1]. The original article had at least two facts, and even some finite verbs. Kappa 07:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep all articles with at least two facts and some finite verbs on notable gangs. Radiant_* 11:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. IIRC, Mau Maus were about as famous as gangs like Crips and Bloods thought not particularly large. The present article, however, is hardly informative. No vote yet - Skysmith"
  • Keep. Article is a classic stub, but the topic is encyclopedic. -Casito 08:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable 1950's Puerto Rican gang with Nicky Cruz as a member. Salvador Agron was a member of the Mau Mau's before he became a member of another gang called the Vampires when he performed the Capeman murders in 1959 - Paul Simon wrote a Broadway show based on his story. The Spike Lee film Bamboozled featured a fictional rap group called the Mau Mau's featuring Mos Def and Canibus. This group released a single called Blak is Blak. I hope to write an article based on this information. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Mau Maus did exist and are note worthy as part of NYC history Paradiso 10:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a stub, and it appears there is enough notability about the Mau Mau street gang to warrant an entry. Perhaps Capitalistroadster would be so kind as to edit the article to include some of the info found that is used here in the article's defense. That would certainly increase the value of the entry. -- Glen Finney 14:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. VfD is not cleanup. --GRider\talk 18:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable topic, but needs to be seriously expanded. --FuriousFreddy 23:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have now expanded the article based on my vote above. No change from Keep. Capitalistroadster 11:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, then. Notable enough. VladMV ٭ talk 15:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that it's been expanded, it is a significant article. *Dan* 02:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep has good information. User:Ted-m
  • Keep this is an article with interesting information; particularly as the Mau-Maus feature in a number of popular books. Oliver Keenan 17:45, Apr 3, 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. —Korath (Talk) 00:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Homeless Solutions in Williamsburg VA[edit]

This article is either:

1) an advertizement 2) non-encyclopedic

Maury 00:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Or both. Delete. --Briangotts 01:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't think she really wants the sorts of contacts she'd get from a listing on Wikipedia when we get slashdotted. It seems like an ad for a non-profit. Pure of heart or weak of mind, the material is inappropriate. Homeless folks only in Williamsburg, Virginia need apply, and the numbers of them with computer access who will look at Wikipedia when thinking of their housing needs must be very small indeed. Geogre 05:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She really doesn't know what she's doing by posting this here. It's not an encyclopedic article anyway. RickK 06:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Deadcorpse 06:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic, promo. Megan1967 07:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Localised advert, not encyclopedic. Average Earthman 08:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though the author is well intended, this is simply not encyclopedic. -Casito 08:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blacklys[edit]

Vanity page. Delete Andrew pmk 03:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Quite possibly a speedy deletion candidate for being a link holder. Wikipedia is not a web guide, and web guides are not blog guides. Geogre 05:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, haha, the feeling he had. -- Deadcorpse 06:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for a non-notable vanity blog. jni 08:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. While 1000 hits in 2 months is good for a typical blog, it is hardly notable. (who knows where else it has been advert'ed to get those hits). -Casito 09:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. —Seselwa 09:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edison Hollow South[edit]

Just some unremarkable condo building--13 displayed hits. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, nor is it the Middlesex County, New Jersey assessor's office. Niteowlneils 03:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and a note to contributor: Not more of this Middlesex stuff, please. There was a Spoon River-like obsession with the area from a user some time back. He disappeared, and yet now microscopic coverage suddenly reappears? The development is not significant. Geogre 05:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Deadcorpse 06:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Possibly make a mention in Middlesex Country, New Jersey (thought may be too small even for that) and delete - Skysmith 08:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. I don't know what is more amusing, the fact that no town is mentioned on this advert, or how dirt cheap the condo is. -Casito 09:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable advert. —Seselwa 09:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This above comments are biased ... What is Edison Hollow South any way? Can any one answer this question ?

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Preemployment Benefits[edit]

More op/ed original research from User:67.85.73.41. One hit, but it's for a different meaning. 10 displayed hits for "Pre employment Benefits", and again, all are other meanings. Niteowlneils 03:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV original research. Sounds like this guy wants the government to hand out signing bonuses. android↔talk 04:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Weird, fit only for a "Letters to the Editor" of a small town paper. Notice that he misses out on the idea that these might be an incentive to people to leave the dole and only thinks of them as being a way of covering the time to the first paycheck. Original "research." Geogre 05:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: The author clearly speaks English as a second language. Consider that the title may be a gross mistranslation (of what I don't know) or may refer to a economic system in an other country. -Casito 09:09, 30 Mar 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 userfy. Original article name deleted. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glenn Jahnke[edit]

Vanity. (Worse, photographically incompetent vanity: see the eyeballs.) -- Hoary 03:44, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

  • Userfy to User:Glumx, along with a strong suggestion to upload a smaller, more, er, flattering picture of self. android↔talk 04:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The VfD notice ought to be sufficient for a moderately aware user to recognize that it's time to move the contents to the user page. I do not say this to be cruel, but being a Wikipedian means knowing not to do this. Geogre 05:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that he's got two edits, he may not qualify as "moderately aware". -- Cyrius|✎ 05:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do anonymous IP users even have userpages to userfy? -- Deadcorpse 06:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'd call it vanity, but that photo will sure attract a lot of girls. -Casito 09:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Message left on user's talk page, though, so hopefully he'll transfer the content himself. — Asbestos | Talk 10:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wish I had hair like that. --NormanEinstein 17:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry guys, I am new to this and clearly haven't figured everything out. I think it is correct now, right?

  • A few things: 1) Are you planning on using both usernames? If you're only going to use User:Glumx, move the page content there, instead. 2) It's not really appropriate for an article-space page to link to a user-space one in this manner. If you blank Glenn Jahnke, then you can submit it as a candidate for speedy deletion, since you're the sole editor of the page. Just replace the page content with something like {{db|my user test, please delete}}. 3) Thanks for not flipping out over this – you can guess what some others' reactions are like... :o) android↔talk 05:17, Apr 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strong Future International[edit]

Delete. Likely promo for a multi-level marketing outfit. External link goes to a page with broken images. User's only edits are to this article and to add to a list of companies in the MLM article. android↔talk 03:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Wholly inappropriate content. It's definitely MLM (says so), and it's all about "associates," so it's out. Further, the company, such as it is, is microscopic. Geogre 05:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising --Wahoofive 06:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert -Casito 09:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 10:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising. (anonymous) 03:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not really anything of interest, not really encyclopaedic, blatant adverts. Oliver Keenan 16:34, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. —Seselwa 09:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

San José Department[edit]

From Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

  • Spanish. A department of Uruguay. Looks like a possible copyvio to me, although Google doesn't find it. Could be scanned from a book, especially because it uses abbreviations. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
The abbreviations are the spanish version of cardinal points (NO is Northwest NW) Drini 04:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<end moved comments>

  • It's had its 2 weeks, and no one has started a translation. Valid topic, less than great name, but I gather that people agreed with me that it looked like a likely copyvio and consequently no one wanted to put the effort into translation. Oh, and there are other abbreviations, like "depto." for "departamiento". Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all I know this article is encyclopedic and written in stunning prose, but since mi comprende no Espanol, I have no idea. Since no one is willing to translate, though, it is probably of limited interest. -Casito 09:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the contributer returns and puts up an English language version it might be interesting, but that doesn't seem likely at the mement. — Asbestos | Talk 10:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Do we currently have an ongoing Uruguay project? Do we have articles on the other departments of Uruguay? This does appear to be almost certainly copyvio. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MGCR 360[edit]

It's a course description of some college business class, does not seem appropriate at all. As no potential for merger or any encyclopedicity, Delete.--Dmcdevit 05:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Looks like a new user test and therefore a CSD. Geogre 05:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Wahoofive 06:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, make it disappear. -- Deadcorpse 06:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Single course at a college. Utterly non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Average Earthman 08:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please. -Casito 09:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although it should be known that this entry was designed as part of a group project to show how Wikipedia works and how vigilant the admins are.--Michaelk 06:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; I happened to find it as a Randompage; nothing links to it at all, and it's not particularly informative. Jim Huggins 03:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. User test, no potential to become encyclopedic. Jonathunder 04:27, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Wtshymanski 04:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic. —Seselwa 09:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Computer Destination[edit]

Advertising --Wahoofive 06:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete since this is advertising. Also I put the creator, AMCDeathKnight on the vfd-page too. Sjakkalle 06:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. Glaurung 07:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not just an advert, but a really cheap and lazy advert -Casito 09:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 10:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. —Seselwa 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reirom[edit]

This article (and its mate on Wikiquote) comes across as either a vanity page or a joke, especially given that it English style suggesting written from persons it about. I don't know what kind of "emulation forum" this person is supposed to be famous in, but I'd be happy to have my ignorance corrected. (There are some webpages that make reference to "Reirom" and his(?) indecipherable "emuspeak", but the ones I checked seemed as suspect as the original info. I'm looking for hard evidence.) Does anyone know what this is about, and if so, is this article salvageable? (Even if it's legit, it needs to be translated from its cryptic form, as the average en:Wikipedia reader doesn't read emuspeak.) Please respond Delete or Keep, and include any knowledge and especially any reliable citations you may have to convince folks whether it's real or a hoax. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep*. Reirom is the king of ROMS, the pope of emulation, the midas netal.
  • Delete. Doesn't matter if it's real or a hoax, the person is non-notable. RickK 07:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity, IRC-cruft. jni 08:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. -Casito 09:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. Sigh. --Securiger 11:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reirom is a meme. --Mateusc 19:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Mateusc, you've said that elsewhere, but haven't provided any evidence that anyone but you believes this. (The lack of evidence itself suggests that it isn't a meme.) I don't think Richard Dawkins would agree with your use of the term. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless significant evidence of, well, significance is presented, such as a Wired article. Gamaliel 19:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. -- Dcfleck 16:30, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reirom is a notorious figure in the internet. Information about him shall be kept for posteriority! unsigned vote from 201.8.87.109
  • Delete vanity/non-notable. —Seselwa 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMCDeathKnight[edit]

Internet users are not inherently encyclopedic, and I see nothing which makes this one an exception. Sjakkalle 06:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with above. Cnwb 06:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Who's who Glaurung 07:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree, in that Wikipedia's contents should include the equivalent of Who's Who. I agree, however, that this person most definitely isn't in. Chris 21:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is a directory of players of video games targeted to 10-14 year olds. -Casito 09:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny, I though wikipedia was an encyclopedia (Perhaps you forgot a not? :) ). Delete. Thue | talk 10:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There was supposed to be a not in there somewhere. I guess I should have gone to sleep a few hours before that edit. -Casito 23:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought it was a very cute typo :). Thue | talk 14:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear cut vanity case. Securiger 11:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Dsmdgold 17:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Mrwojo 16:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ick. Some vanity. The title sounds like an American Motors show car. Delete as some kind of vanity. - Lucky 6.9 02:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/non-notable. —Seselwa 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. SteveW 18:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Stripping Jesus"[edit]

Original commentary about a non-notable work of art. Seems to be an ad for "maleperfection.net" anyway. Rhobite 07:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Poorly titled. Delete unless notability established. Slac speak up! 07:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a famous image, so delete unless the artist can be established as noteworthy. The article is just a rant. A vanity piece by the artist or just an advertisement for the website? Paradiso 08:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No decision. Fame of the image is hard to evaluate. -Casito 09:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. Charles Matthews 10:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cunningly camouflaged link spam. Actually not that cunning, as the article is also crap. Securiger 11:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason to doubt the fame of the image. The article may be relevant. Sirkumsize 03:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How about zero Google hits for "stripping jesus" boycott? This is manufactured controversy, designed to drive traffic to some random web site. Rhobite 03:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Radiant_* 10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No google hits for "Stripping Jesus" + "Athen Grey" Dsmdgold 14:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and POV issues. —Seselwa 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Seems to be a rant against the church. Oliver Keenan 17:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of pieces, French[edit]

A list of one composer with a few of his works does not make a list of French pieces. Too broad for a list, unnecessary, and not recommended for expansion. See also List of pieces, American. -- Daniel Lawrence 07:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur, delete. Radiant_* 08:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for same reasons. -Casito 09:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lists of pieces should be placed on composer pages Paradiso 10:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a zillion of these either extant or mooted. There seems to be an ongoing discussion at Category talk:Musical compositions and Category talk:Lists of pieces. Securiger 11:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those "ongoing discussions" have been inactive for six months, I notice. --Wahoofive 18:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary list. Megan1967 02:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All lists are unecessary to a degree. Hyacinth 03:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic. —Seselwa 09:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep for all four articles. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Danforth Avenue, Degrassi Street, Don Mills Road, Dufferin Street[edit]

Someone seems intent on creating an article on every single street in Toronto. Since Wikipedia is not a roadmap, I believe this is misguided, and said user should instead look in Wikicities or Wikitravel. I do believe that some streets are encyclopedic, but not all of them. These articles consist of trivia as to what attractions are near the street, or explain in detail the person the street was named after (which should be explained in an article on that person). Delete. Radiant_* 08:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, all the most useful detail in the world is "trivia" to some people. Kappa 10:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, major or historic streets in major cities are noteworthy Paradiso 10:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, but these aren't major or historic streets. Radiant_* 11:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Degrassi street, which is in fact a bit famous. No vote on the rest, I would like to hear the opinion of a Torontan as to their notability. Securiger 11:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep major streets. - SimonP 13:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I know nothing of Toronto but have heard of "The Danforth". - Jord 14:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, so have I, but Danforth Avenue is not the same thing as The Danforth. It's merely nearby. Radiant_* 15:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, "The Danforth" is the street itself; the larger neighbourhood is referred to as Greektown or Riverdale. (Frex, the Barenaked Ladies song "The Old Apartment" has the lyric "We bought an old house on the Danforth", not "in the Danforth". Bearcat 18:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect most of them. Danforth Avenue to Danforth, Degrassi Street to The Kids of Degrassi Street, Don Mills Road to Don Mills. Delete Dufferin Street. Hopefully we will soon be able to have an actual map of Toronto so this longhand description will not be needed (as if it ever was). -R. fiend 17:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial streetcruft. A serious encyclopedia discriminates between useless data and useful information. Gamaliel 18:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • My own take, personally, is that Danforth and Degrassi are sufficiently notable, but Don Mills and Dufferin probably aren't (disclosure: I created the Degrassi article, because of its significance to what are arguably the most famous Canadian television series in history, but I don't normally do Toronto streets). I don't believe that all major streets should have articles; only ones with special historic significance. As a Torontonian, my own evaluation is that most of them really ought to be shitcanned, but keep Allen, Bay, Black Creek, Bloor, College, Danforth, Degrassi, Don Valley Parkway, Dundas, Eglinton, Front, Gardiner Expressway, Kingston, Lakeshore, Queen West, Spadina, St. Clair, University and Yonge as more notable than most. (Oh, and the provincial highway numbers, but those are a different matter entirely.) Bearcat 19:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --SPUI (talk) 20:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\talk 23:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Another lamentable example of the deletionist practice of rephrasing (ie misrepresenting) policy in the hope of swaying a vote. Wincoote 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No personal attacks please.
      • Comment: The above is a lamentable example of the distortion of policy to suppress free speech. Kappa 10:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No, Kappa, it is not. This VfD nomination makes no reference to policy, merely to the nominator's beliefs. Ungroundedly accusing people of breaking policy, as you have just done construes personal attack. Radiant_* 11:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
          • So does no-one ever break policy, or are we just not allowed to mention it when it happens? Kappa 12:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • You shouldn't mention it unless it happens. Radiant_* 13:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dufferin Street is extremely important historically because it used to be the centre of Toronto's Italian community for 30-40 years and still intersects "Little Italy." I just added some info about this to the article. Paradiso 04:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Then my not redirect it to the article on Little Italy in Toronto? I assume there is one. It's certainly mroe notable than the street running through it. -R. fiend 20:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Spinboy 04:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable Toronto streets which meet my criterion for inclusion of roads and streets. Degrassi Street was shown on ABC TV in Australia. Capitalistroadster 11:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all major streets. N-Man 13:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep them all. Samaritan 16:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep being intent on listing streets is not a crime. Nobody would accuse any street in NYC as being of no consequence, and Toronto is the capital of Canada. People need to be more sparing with the delete tag. Sniffandgrowl 00:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Be sure to update Wikipedia's article on Canada to reflect the fact that apparently they moved their capital from Ottawa. Gamaliel 17:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If someone wants to write an article on every street in Toronto, Wikipedia will be that much closer towards becoming a truly encyclopedic encyclopedia.--Gene_poole 01:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ElBenevolente 05:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Degrassi Street, delete the rest. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; all are major and/or notable streets, especially the first two. I'm not aware of anything interesting on Dufferin but I could be wrong. —Psychonaut 03:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BlackJudas[edit]

Vanity, non-notable quake player, should be deleted as per policy. I am not eagerly awaiting the second volume of his autobiography. Anilocra 08:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Please. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth reading. Probably just a run-of-the-mill vanity page. -Casito 09:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear cut vanity case. --Securiger 11:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Guettarda 16:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. —Seselwa 09:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is national jew?[edit]

Merge anything useful into Zionism and/or Jewish history, and delete the rest. Poorly titled and poorly written; only references are to other Wikipedia articles. --Angr 08:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The title was suggested as a way round a problem with ethnicity vs nationality on Talk:Jew, but I don't think this is quite what they had in mind. Anilocra 09:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rewrite and rename the article National Jew and link with Jew -- Paradiso 10:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is already covered at Who is a Jew?. Conceivably some content could be merged but "Who is a Jew?" is already 10,000% better. There is no need to preserve a redirect from this title, as it is ungrammatical and thus very unlikely to be used. Securiger 11:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - If "National Jew" actually deserves an article do it as a clean re-write - there's nothing useful here, and the title is ungrammatical. Guettarda 16:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I agree, should not be moved or redirected, but deleted and then a new article created called National Jew linked with Jew. -- Paradiso 23:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:29, 31 Mar 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 following a majority keep vote, significant expansion and withdrawal of the nomination. Mgm|(talk) 22:06, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pizza delivery[edit]

  • Keep. I'm a little offended that you guys fail to see the "art" inherent in Pizza Delivery, but I am excited that my entry has grown into a respectable article now. However, I must remind Cyrius... never slap the pizza driver, he knows where you live.

I'm sure there's a lot to say on the subject, but this doesn't provide any useful information, so delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Now that the article is expanded and the needless referring to delivery as an art is removed, I see no more reason to delete this. I vote Keep and withdraw my nomination. Mgm|(talk) 08:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, an article could probably be written, but the current one has zero information content. Keep now Thue | talk 10:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic topic, has potential. Kappa 10:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The topic might be better suited as a section in something like Home delivery, than in its own article.--Matteh (talk) 10:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's only been up a few hours. It's a sub-stub now, but I can easily see it becoming an encyclopaedic article (albeit one that wouldn't interest me personally!). (Oh, I made some suggestions for expansion on its talk page.) --Securiger 10:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. While I believe in deleting unexpanded substubs, there needs to be the opportunity for growth first. Also, smack Chris Horvath around for posting something with no links and no formatting. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Glen Finney 14:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pizza, subject is already better covered there. Radiant_* 14:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Merge/redirect to Pizza, even though Pizza links to Pizza delivery. — RJH 17:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some aspects of 'pizza delivery' (a service) deserve unique treatment apart from pizza (a food product)... like the not infrequent use of pizza delivery as a prank, or as a plot device in porno movies. -- 8^D gab 18:02, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. --"GRider"\talk 18:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup and/or expansion--pizza delivery is a phenomenon separate from the food itself, and deserving of its own article. Meelar (talk) 20:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject of "pizza delivery" is different from pizza can be expanded with significant historic and cultural information. Zzyzx11 21:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some info is useful, and it should be allowed to grow. --Plainsong 23:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now expanded this article somewhat - it is certainly much closer to encyclopaedic. -- 8^D gab 01:05, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Keep; looking good now. Antandrus 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Pizza. The topic would be better suited there rather than as an article on its own. Megan1967 02:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pizza. Looks like some thought has gone into the article - but it's not strong enough to stand by itself. -Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - good article now. Well done BD2412. Capitalistroadster 12:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Collective effort, actually - as the history shows, a lot of people pitched in overnight (or throughout the day if you live on the other side of the world from me). -- 8^D gab 12:47, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Keep the current article. --SPUI (talk) 13:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good expansion! N-Man 13:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and list on WP:UA for its pathological detail into something which for most people is fairly mundane. Chris 21:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: kudos to everyone who worked on this article; it's quite good now. I second the WP:UA suggestion. Antandrus 23:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Four dumb kids[edit]

Two problems: 1) the content is not notable 2) there is no substantive content (and I don't count the marketing plug "Described as 'Heartfelt punk and ska with a social conscience'." as substantive) This is an ad for the band.

Unless substantive content can be added, the page should be deleted.

Motherfucker 10:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity/advertising for a non-notable (or at any rate, not-yet-notable) band, curiously appearing on WP just before they go on tour. Securiger 11:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ARGH. More bands doing self-promos. Horrible. Smoddy (tgeck) 11:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity --Wahoofive 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promo. —Seselwa 09:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chigozie okonkwo[edit]

Vanity. Delete. Lupo 10:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree. Motherfucker 10:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. Securiger 11:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note that the author Cmokon appears to be the subject of this article and has copied its contents to his user talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 21:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Minor note: it's the other way 'round: he copied it from his talk page (10:10) into the article (10:19). Lupo 06:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, good catch. FreplySpang (talk) 05:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 09:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 01:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Troll Kingdom[edit]

It's a small BBS. The article consists largely of highly opinionated vignettes of the regular posters. Wikipedia is not a web directory:

  • Alexa page rank = 993,258 [2].
  • Number of valid inlinks = 1.
  • Persons using it when I checked = 2.

-- Securiger 10:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I would say redirect, but I can't think of any fantasy-book or RPG-setting that actually has a troll kingdom. So delete as non-notable BBS. Radiant_* 14:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete barring somewhere useful to redirect. Slac speak up! 22:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do NOT delete. There's no reason to; having that entry is not detrimental in any way.
(Unsigned comment by User:172.135.50.235) Slac speak up! 03:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but if the consensus is to delete, I'd like to see the History section merged back into TrekBBS, where it originally spun out of. - Lifefeed 14:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete that. Grue 14:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 09:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silklantern[edit]

Non-notable The Wheel of Time fan site. Delete following precedent set by Template:VfD-Wotmania, especially given that Silklantern.com has a much lower Alexa rank (about 750,000, see [3]) than Wotmania (about 200,000, see [4]). —Lowellian (talk) 11:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per reasons given above. —Lowellian (talk) 11:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. Delete.--Securiger 12:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promo. —Seselwa 09:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. – ABCD 02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of postal codes in Austria[edit]

User:Minirich has been using this article and others as a depository for Austrian postal codes. This is not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a postal code database. Some of the articles were just given numbers as names, see for example: 7300 - 7399 I've speedy deleted about five such articles, and in a charitable frame of mind, copied information from the articles to User:Minirich/temp. But honestly, I feel that none of the following articles belong on wikipedia, not even the ones that are properly named. I'd like to delete the following articles:

--Woggly 11:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh wait, there's more!! What an infernal waste of time:

--Woggly 12:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In light of discussion here, I'll amend my vote: keep List of postal codes in Austria, as there are similar lists for other countries, but merge everything else into it. I'd also like to point out that all the while this discussion is going on, Minirich is blithely ignoring all attempts to communicate with him/her, and simply continuing to recreate the deleted articles and churn out new ones:


--Woggly 08:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete 'em all. Not encyclopaedic at all. Smoddy (tgeck) 12:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) (In retrospect, reading that policy page Allen3 quotes, I guess that one will stay, but my vote stands)
  • These are certainly not speedy deletions. I think mass deletions of them are quite against policy, whatever you think of the content. It is factual. Charles Matthews 13:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I've listed them on Votes for Deletion, not marked them for speedy deletion. The ones I did delete had numbers for names, no meaningful lead, and no content in English - three things that make for very bad articles - I copied their content to a separate subpage (nothing lost) and alerted the author. When I realised there were lots more, I came here. Why don't you vote, or make a constructive suggestion, rather than just complaining? --Woggly 13:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Because you have been clearly violating the speedy deletion policy. Like it says, check for links first - that would have told you these were Austrian postcodes, just as it told me. Charles Matthews
  • And keep. NB we have pages like List of postcodes in Tasmania, list of ZIP codes in Rhode Island, not to speak of some British codes having individual pages. Charles Matthews 14:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all since huge lists of postal codes are hardly encyclopedic. If we absolutely want something like this, consolidate it all into bunches like "1000 series: Vienna" and so on and add an external link to the Austrian postal service. However, I feel honor bound to mention that List of ZIP Codes in the United States (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in the United States) survived a debate like this, albeit with a slim majority favoring deletion. Sjakkalle 14:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and consolidate as necessary, like List of ZIP Codes in the United States. Kappa 14:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Per earlier consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Postal_district, keep only the main list for Austria, and delete the rest. I would say WikiSource except that WS doesn't want it. Radiant_* 14:33, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cleanup the pages and create a uniform format for them. The list seems useful, for example to see which places in Austria don't have articles yet. I suggest that there should be one subpage for each state. Martg76 16:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the main page and merge the rest in. --SPUI (talk) 20:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic maintenance. --GRider\talk 23:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles about postal codes. RickK 01:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete so as to artificially decompose. Postcode articles should redirect to the localities they refer to. Slac speak up! 01:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, these pages DO link to the localities they refer to. Martg76 08:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 02:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Expand? How is that possible? RickK 05:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • All 32 of them? --Woggly 11:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep main article on postal codes of Austria, delete the others. Capitalistroadster 12:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh my God!!! Delete that stuff (maybe except for main page). Grue 14:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notability not established. Keep.--Gene_poole 01:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 14:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The criterion for this kind of thing IMO should be whether a more authoritative source for the same information is available elsewhere. Lists of postal codes are easy to find authoritative sources for (like postal service websites for the respective countries), and users will not turn to Wikipedia for this kind of thing, nor should they. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. That said, I've reconsidered my vote. Someone here said that Wikipedia has a clear policy of keeping lists of national postcodes. Since the pages are obviously not correctly named, I suggest that we keep the whole mass but refer it to Wikipedia:Requested moves, which I gather is the proper place for addressing complicated mergers and moves. --Smithfarm
  • Delete. It is a sad day when deleting "articles" like these sees such hot debate. Indrian 00:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Some of us feel that this kind of page is precisely the kind of navigation feature that makes it superior to rivals such as Britannica and Google. Kappa 05:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Martg76. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but merge with the main page, or find a more informative subdivision schema (such as by province/state). Some of these are in completely the wrong namespace, but it is a potentially useful list. The ones in the wrong space (ie: just numbers, or a numerical range of Austrian postal codes) should be deleted (not redirected), but only after the information therein is moved somewhere appropriate--Kieran 14:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can't see a reason to delete rather than Cleanup.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. List is not useful, and is impossible to maintain. --Carnildo 22:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep main list, delete the others. PrimeFan 22:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - what next on Wikipedia - pages from the phone book ? Andypasto 08:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pointless spam JoseMonzako
  • Delete - but great for a sister project CoolGuy 00:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ADM: Knowledge Management Desktop Powerful outliner and knowledge management desktop with many unique features[edit]

Looks like obvious product spam to me.

Danny Yee 12:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Yup. Definitely delete. --Woggly 12:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. (Even the title is an ad.) -- Cyrius|✎ 12:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. This product can't be confused with those of megacorporation Archer Daniels Midland but if I were the developers of this software I'd suggest changing it anyway... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Didn't I already vote for this on VfD? Was it deleted and then rewritten? Strong delete. — JIP | Talk 04:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I seem to remember this clunker as well. If memory serves, a user commented that no one would ever type that whole mess of words in the search box. - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was me. — JIP | Talk 04:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it is indeed a re-creation of something previously deleted, isn't it a speedy candidate? Jonathunder 04:32, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. —Seselwa 09:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Trade Union[edit]

The article is about..., um, well it begins by mentioning the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers and claiming it is the first trade union in the United States. It does not make clear if that means it is the first trade union in the world (which the article title implies) or put it into any historical context. It then goes on with a couple of loosely connected sentences and ends up with a somewhat longer paragraph on what a trade union is, a subject which is already covered in the article Trade union, even though a little more on the origin of unions may be in order in that article. The page includes an image which is nicked from the website to which the article refers. The article author is likely very young, judging from other edits. / Uppland 12:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if not moved and severely cleaned. Right now its a bunch of nonsequiturs and a dicdef. -R. fiend 17:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Topic belongs in a more general article. Wincoote 01:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definitions, doesn't really merit having its own article at this stage. Megan1967 02:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Parks[edit]

Non notable. Google yields 7 hits on name + photographer. Inter\Echo 13:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete stubby vanity advert. --Smithfarm
  • Delete vanity. —Seselwa 09:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tacumwah[edit]

No potential to become encyclopedic, possibly vanity page Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Total article text[edit]

“Tacumwah Miami businesswoman and mother of Chief Richardville.”

  • Tacumwah was a real person, and this is not a vanity article. The article was supposed to link to Chief Jean Baptiste de Richardville, her son, who was a very important historical figure. I mistyped the link, which I am going to correct. This article should be expanded, with reliable, factual information, NOT deleted.
The reason I have left it at sub-stub level for now is that I have had a hard time separating some of the mythology about Tacumwah from the facts. Her name has been used for a large youth sports complex in my area, which has prompted some of the same edifying mythology for young people as for Michikinikwa (Little Turtle). Since you are a Briton, and not a resident of northeast Indiana/northwest Ohio, you are probably not familiar with these moral tales Probably the most famous is th story of how Little Turtle fired off his arrows to the four winds to set the boundaries of a place where the young braves could always go to learn the skills and values proper to the young men of any tribe. It's a complete fairy tale made up some 150 years later, when Camp Chief Little Turtle at the Anthony Wayne Boy Scout Reservation was founded. However, unlike Little Turtle, Tacumwah doesn't seem to have inspired as much genuine scholarship, at least that I can uncover. I'm also busy with several other Wiki projects (like Costas Georgiou, and school assignments right now, and I haven't had the time to go digging in the library.
I'm planning to go to a historical society meeting on the preservation of the Richardville treaty house in Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is scheduled to take place in a few months, when school is out for the summer. There should be many more knowledgable persons than I in attendance, who can give me some reliable info and point me to good sources. Can we tolerate the stub for two more months? --Jpbrenna 17:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've started some other Miami-tribe related stubs and sub-stubs. They should all be linked to here, in this category that I created: Category:Miami_tribe I started the articles because I referenced the subjects in other, related articles and I figured I could start a stub and attract other people with better information to work on them and/or eventually uncover some more info and work on them myself. I've been wary of relying on Internet-based material too much, because of some problems I encountered with 'net info on Costas Georgiou, and some of the materials I need are only available through inter-library loan and will require extensive reading that I don't have time for right now. If we can hold off on votes for deletion on these for a couple of days, I'll try to sift through the Internet sources and develop enough to justify keeping them around.--Jpbrenna 18:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep. Not vanity (she was born in 1720), and seems reasonably notable, in so much as a few things in south Florida have been named after her. Anilocra 17:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I've updated it with as much internet-derived information as I dare. The knife story seems reasonable enough, but some of the other stories I've heard seem a little far-fetched (although truth is sometimes stranger than fiction).--Jpbrenna 18:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in the light of the new additions. That said, Mel's original listing was, I think, warranted; such minimalist placeholder substubs seem unwise to me. They don't add much value, and run rather a high risk of being forgotten, orphaned, and left to rot. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Chief Jean Baptiste de Richardville. Until this article is substantially improved further I see no reason to keep this as an individual article when it could be merged with her son's article. Megan1967 02:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant person in the history of the Miami tribe.Capitalistroadster 12:48, 31 Mar 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 - nomination withdrawn --r3m0t talk 22:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ray Eames[edit]

Famous designer? If this were so, I would be able to find non-wikipedia hits on Google. I can't. r3m0t talk 13:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, I get about 73,900 non-wikipedia hits. This one is from the Library of Congress. Kappa 14:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I did the same Google search as Kappa. Charles and Ray Eames were a notable husband-and-wife team of American furniture designers. FreplySpang (talk) 14:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ultimate doubleplus x-treme keep. Highly notable. Surname pronounced exactly like "Ames," BTW. Can't imagine why you couldn't Google her. Try "Office of Charles and Ray Eames." The Eames chair. The "House of Cards" toy/sculpture/thingy. The movie "Powers of Ten." The couple was among those honored in Apple's "Think Different" poster series ad campaign a while back, although as the pictures were never captioned it wasn't obvious if you didn't know how they looked. See http://www.eamesoffice.com/ and http://www.powersof10.com . Oh, they designed museum exhibits sponsored by IBM, "Astronomia" at the American Museum of Natural History and "Mathematica" at the Boston Museum of Science and perhaps elsewere. "Mathematica" is still there. I think it must have been there for three decades! Very nice exhibits, even if phrases like "World peace through world trade" (an old IBM motto) have a tendency to pop up here and there, like Nina in an Al Hirschfeld cartoon. Oh, did I mention the IBM exhibit at the 1964 New York World's Fair? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P. S. And I'm NOT particularly big on architecture or design, it's just that the Eames' did something infinitely cool about twice per decade. If you don't know what the Eames chair is: you'd recognize if it you saw it, and probably half of all comfy non-secretarial expensive leather swivel chairs are knock-offs of it. Oh, and they designed the relatively comfy row-seating (black seats, shiny metal frames) you see in half the airports I've ever been in. These. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P. P. S. We have a whole article on their Powers of Ten movie. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\talk 18:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I made some sort of mistake here. Can I withdraw this? r3m0t talk 19:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

    • Maybe put "withdrawn" in italics under the title, and it's probably safe to take off the Vfd notice too, no-one's going to vote "delete" now. Kappa 21:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I went on and on. Mistakes happen. No harm done. By the way, the Powers of Ten movie is just unbelievably cool and worth seeking out. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homeless Solutions in Edison NJ[edit]

All of the other advertisements from 67.85.73.41 (talk · contribs) are currently listed for deletion. This completes the set. Uncle G 14:00, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

  • Delete not encyclopedic. Smoddy (tgeck) 19:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV original essay, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as inappropriate. --Smithfarm
  • Delete in agreement with those above (not an encyclopaedia entry, original work, and non-neutral POV). Oliver Keenan 16:17, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. —Seselwa 09:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Canon EOS-20D. – ABCD 02:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Canon 20D[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as "advertising". Looks more like a review to me, which is still not really wikipedia's job, but it deserves a chance to be cleaned up IMO. No vote. Kappa 14:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the Canon 20A, B, and C? Seriously, having separate articles for every single rev of a camera is like having separate articles for different option packages on a car--I think 2001 Chevy Camaro 5-speed with tinted glass and power locks, but no CD changer is carrying things too far. Delete or merge/redir. Niteowlneils 14:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Niteowl, merge. Radiant_* 14:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are other individual Canon camera pages. Link from List of Canon products and cleanup/wikify. — RJH 16:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\talk 00:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Fg2 02:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's already a proper page on the Canon_EOS-20D mvdhout 09:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. – ABCD 02:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czerka Corporation[edit]

I am not familiar with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. If this corporation is important in the game, then the article should be expanded. Otherwise I would suggest it be deleted, or merged if the article is extended. -- Daniel Lawrence 15:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or keep fancruft. Kappa 16:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge fiction trivia per recent WP:FICT consensus. Even if "this corporation is important in the game" it is still just a minor something in a game that hasn't been culturally influential even though Star Wars somewhat has. Nothing article-worthy about this Lucascruft. I want StarWarsWiki to start so I can vote Transwiki to hundreds of these articles. Barno 17:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently it's been started. I think it's not really taking off because everything that gets tranwikied there gets kept here for some ungodly reason,making it redundant. I think "wookiepedia" is a good idea and wish it would take over this sort of thing. To encourage this I will vote transwiki there, then merge or delete from here. -R. fiend 03:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I'm on my second play-through of this game; Czerka Corporation is really only a minor part of the backstory. android↔talk 17:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 17:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, although the corporation is of slightly more importance in KOTORII Lectonar 10:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's my self-styled policy not to give anyone a delete. But I can't for the life of me understand how the star wars universe gets such a free pass on Wikipedia. To invoke Pokemon as an example. I do nothing on this place but look at deleted articles to see if anybody is being a frivolous delete-happy choad and I see better content than this summarily being dismissed. Sniffandgrowl 04:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User was created today; he has only four edits not to vfds, two of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 04:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this should be deleted, but if it should be merged, I would urge caution on how to do so. Czerka is not limited to KOTOR and merging and redirecting there would be silly. To create a real-world analogy, that would be like merging delorian into Back to the Future just becasue one was used in the movie. Indrian 00:16, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, you seem to have more knowledge of the subject than I do... any ideas on a target for the merge? List of minor supporting Star Wars concepts? Where's Riffsyphon when you need 'im? android↔talk 00:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Czerka is a personal weapons manufacturer that specializes in producing hold-out blasters. If redirected, it should be to something like List of Star Wars Corporations or an article on blaster technology in general or hold-out blasters specifically. There is already a category called Star Wars companies, and some of those shoud really be merged into said list as well. Freitek, Blastech, Sorosuub, etc. are really just footnotes in the Star Wars universe with very little material produced on them, essentially just samples of their products with little corporate history. Indrian 00:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Galaxy's third largest arms producer! This is as major as most Star Wars companies artices. If it isn't kept, there'll be room for it at at starwars.wikia.com:[5]-LtNOWIS 20:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Footmen frenzy[edit]

A non-notable custom map by non-notable "clan" in a computer game. Delete this as fancruft. jni 16:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nearly anything about individual videogaming "clans". CDC (talk) 17:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete anything on clans and custom maps. Mgm|(talk) 08:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 22:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Magma26[edit]

This vote was started by User:Lyo, but I added it to the VfD page. --Conti|✉ 17:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Vainity article. Lyo 20:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Conti|✉ 17:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No need for vfd. I put speedy mark on the article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, empty article. Megan1967 02:57, 31 Mar 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. – ABCD 02:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marluxia[edit]

Kingdom Hearts-cruft. User:Luigi30 (ΛυηγηΛ) 16:05, 30 Mar 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ashley House[edit]

Who wants to know about an obscure house in Bermuda? Delete. TAS 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not to include the bramuda house as long as the content is accurate. It seems to be a valid referance to a historic building in the "New World" where you may notice we have a shortage of realy old buildings. Honestly i think that there is no reason to delete the page unless it can be proven inacurate.

Unsigned comment by 168.99.197.187 (talk · contributions)
One reason is that Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. I agree that this should be placed somewhere on the Bermuda pages, but I am thinking it could be cleaned up a bit so it does not sound like an ad. Zscout370 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's one of 60 historical properties on the island. What's so special about this one? Gamaliel 20:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --SPUI (talk) 20:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many such articles in Wikipedia, and we shouldn't sneer at small countries. Wincoote 01:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be much, much, much happier seeing this as a section in an article on Historical Places in Bermuda than as a separate article in itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dpbsmith. Move to Historical Places in Bermuda, then tag for expansion. Meelar (talk) 01:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing really outstanding or notable about this structure. Megan1967 03:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep historical properties. If it's moved I'd prefer Historical places in Bermuda or Historical buildings in Bermuda. You know, capitalization and all that ;) Mgm|(talk) 08:17, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Radiant_* 10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep historic places. Kappa 11:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other historic houses should all be kept, why shouldn't this one? P Ingerson
  • Oh no! Ashley-cruft strikes again! keep Grue 14:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Gamaliel's comment -- answer: It's important enough. The non-notable argument is the most misused one out there. This is for architectural record and probably useful for a number of people. Sniffandgrowl 01:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:26, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all important historic buildings.--Centauri 02:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, sure, but is this an important building? That's the whole question, isn't it? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It says "A Grade One listing is applied to properties that are of significant historic and/or architectural importance to the country" Kappa
  • As I undersatand it, a "Grade One listed" building is by definition a significant structure. Keep Dsmdgold 22:52, Apr 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 02:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rankmat[edit]

While sorting stubs within the fictional galaxy of Star Wars, one source was unable to firmly validate the contents of this article. As I see it, this article stands no chance of becoming encyclopedic; is this fan-fiction or encyclopedically notable content? No vote as of yet. --GRider\talk 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, subtrivial fancruft. Send it to the star wars wiki if need be, but get it out of here. 106 google hits, which seem to be about a different thing altogether. -R. fiend 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Yuuzhan Vong. The lists of links to stubs on that page could stand to be fleshed out with single-sentence descriptions, and the stubs themselves made redirects. Shimmin 18:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Star Wars Wiki and move to Rakamat (correct spelling). -- Riffsyphon1024 19:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahem. Please either vote, or withdraw the nomination. Only those that are fixing incomplete nominations can make "no vote as yet". Chris 21:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge to appropriate Star Wars fancruft page. Note: the title is "Rankmat" but the article body refers only to "rakamat". Which is correct? --Smithfarm
    • "Rakamat" is the correct term. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note:This is probably copyvio. See this link: [6] Aidje 14:38, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
    • Aidje, its the other way around. That is a mirror of this already existing article here. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • oops. That text is really tiny. And far down on the page. And... I'll stop making excuses now. Sorry about that. Aidje 16:54, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sub-trivial fancruft. If the Star Wars wiki wants it, they can have it. --Carnildo 22:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Yuuzhan Vong as per WP:FICT - many related entries have already been merged there by Indrian (thanks!). There seems to be a typo issue so I suppose delete Rankmat and create/redirect Rakamat? -- Lochaber 16:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge just put it in Yuuzhan Vong, it makes sense in there
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vodka and Coke[edit]

For those who are logically handicapped, Vodka and Coke is Vodka and Coke. Totally unnecessary article. And, if you can believe it POV as well. -R. fiend 17:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Much as I agree with the sentiments on Gin and Coke, Delete. Anilocra 18:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons articulated by nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Next thing you know, there will be a Bacardi and Cola and Bacardi and Diet Cola. --Kitch 18:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant definition, no cultural significance, and the author still managed to get it wrong: Coke's ingredients are primarily "water" and "high fructose corn syrup". So we've got a trademark used unnecessarily ("Vodka and cola" would have served) and a POV comment in an article that WP doesn't need. Barno 19:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and clean up. 5,660 google hits for "vodka and coke" (plus another 446 for "vodka and cola") indicates notability. Kappa 21:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Zzyzx11, is there any particular reason you replaced the words "vodka and coke" with "Bermuda" here? FreplySpang (talk) 22:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • FreplySpang, that was not me. That was Kappa. Zzyzx11 23:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Um yeah I think this is a bug, nothing to do with ZZyzx11. Kappa 23:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh. Okay. I apologize for implying you did anything inappropriate. Bugs happen. FreplySpang (talk) 05:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - POV and badly punctuated. The plural is "colas" not "cola's". The latter is the possessive form of "cola".Kevintoronto 21:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge -- To clarify: I suggest we make a short note of "vodka and cola" in both Vodka and Coke articles. A separate article of Vodka and Coke is not needed. Zzyzx11 22:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hard to believe that anyone searching for "vodka and cola" would not search under either "vodka" or "cola". Maybe, just maybe, we could have a list of mixed drinks. Slac speak up! 22:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Zzyzx1. Slac - we do, but it's spelled List of cocktails. Mention it there, and add a (cheap) redirect to Cocktail. FreplySpang (talk) 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I was about to say the same. Instead I'll note in passing that Rum and Coke has been around for 3 years now. I also point out that Wikibooks:Cookbook:Cocktails is just gasping for more articles on how to make cocktails. I'm currently leaning towards Wikibooks followed by Delete and recreate as Redirect to cocktail. Uncle G 00:45, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, unnecessary. Megan1967 03:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm working on making this a good article. Please help the process of organic growth instead of being so quick on the trigger. Klonimus 03:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please consider working on Wikibooks:Cookbook:Vodka and Coke directly instead. Your enthusiasm for writing recipes is commendable. But it is simply making work unnecessarily for other editors if you don't write them in the right WikiMedia project. We have a recipe book in need of recipes being written, and an editor writing recipes. Please put them together properly. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
    • I consider this topic to be as encyclopedic as Martini or Long Island Iced Tea. Klonimus 03:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Neither of which are recipes like the article that you are writing here (Indeed, the former is a disambiguation page.), and both of which have recipes in the recipe book (at Wikibooks:Cookbook:Martini and Wikibooks:Cookbook:Long Island Iced Tea respectively). Again: Please consider making your contributions in the correct places rather than making work for other editors. Uncle G 14:32, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete and add to Wikibooks, and replace this with redirect, as per UncleG. Radiant_* 08:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of cocktails. --bainer 09:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep alone, more important than Pokemons. Grue 14:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, i think this can grow into a good article. bbx 15:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the cookbook, or some other wikibook. For all intents and purposes, this is a recipe (as if you need one) with suggested proportions.Chris 21:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The title serves as a recipe, and the article seems devoid of factual information. Kossukola sounds more like an ad campaign than an actual cocktail; anyone know? —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 23:54 Z
    Kossukola is a classic finnish cocktail. It is made with the most popular vodka and soft drink in finland. If you google the term, you get about 160 hits, with the first page being a finnish cocktail site. Klonimus 06:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of cocktails, as per Rum and Coke.
  • The only encyclopedic bit of this article is the very last line. Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and either delete or at most redirect to List of cocktails. —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Apr 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nguyen the-anh[edit]

Is he notable ? JoJan 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - It is a vanity page. --Anonymous Cow 21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silly rambling non-article (some looks like dumped text from a personal webpage). Speedy delete as junk IMO would be ok. -- Infrogmation 01:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable/vanity/self-promotion/advert/trivia. —Seselwa 10:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Quake[edit]

According to the article, Star Wars Quake, a planned Quake mod, never materialized. Non-commercial fan-based vapor-cruft, or notable and encyclopedic? No vote as of yet. --GRider\talk 19:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It could be just me, but I remember VFD'ing this a while back. Delete either as recreated deletia, or as non-notable for being one of millions of unfinished game projects. Mgm|(talk) 08:21, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until it exists. Radiant_* 10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Existance doesn't equate notability. Star Wars Quake is a well known example of gaming vaporware, second only to Duke Nukem Forever. It's notable for having lasted so long, going through so many different teams and directors, and garnering so much attention, yet still never materializing. 99% of mods have a lifespan of one semester, Star Wars Quake lasted for six years. - Lifefeed 14:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) (author of the article)
    • Second only to Duke Nukem Forever. And Daikatana. Also Doom 3, at least until that ceased to be actual vapourware. That said, the article is well-written, and substantial. Keep for now. Chris 20:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And Team Fortress 2. No vote. Mrwojo 15:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Week keep, look like it has some level of notability. Grue 15:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, mainly because it's a well written and comprehensive article. The topic is a somewhat canonical example for mod development going wrong, so there's at least no harm in keeping it. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A reasonably well-written example of cummunity-based gaming projects failing -- I learned a fair bit reading it. Zantastik 02:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well-written article on well-known vaporware. --Carnildo 22:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 02:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

U-pop[edit]

Neologism. Transwiki to Wiktionary, if appropriate, or delete. --Wahoofive 20:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, gets 35,700 hits which means it's in widespread use. Kappa 21:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth if Universal has a category of records from this genre. --GRider\talk 23:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. I seriously doubt that USA-pop is in widespread use. Google turns up all sorts of hits for U-pop but going through these hits they mostly do not refer to a "USA-pop" as mentioned in the article. Megan1967 03:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Megan. Radiant_* 09:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, and not yet in accepted usage. Chris 20:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete imaginary word. —Seselwa 10:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good fences make good neighbors[edit]

  • move to wikiquote. Mikkalai 20:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to VFD this. Quotes go on WikiQuote. Just transwiki it. Mgm|(talk) 08:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did youm look into the article? Someone goes lengths on commenting about possible meanings of the quote. So I had my doubts. Maybe someone thinks this is a pretty much encyclopedic entry or may be made into such. Mikkalai 15:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm thinking "Keep until an article on the poem comes along, then merge into that", but I'm not planning to vote keep unless someone else does first. Kappa 20:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Ejrrjs | What? 01:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keepIf you read it, the poem itself is commentary on the saying, which, while attributed to Frost, is an old New England saying. The point of the poem is to inspire debate. Mlorrey 05:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, and I don't see what an article on Good fences make good neighbors might possibly be about :|. This might be moved into an article on Mending wall (poem). Gaurav 16:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no real consensus either way, but there is a slight majority favoring inclusion. So keep. Sjakkalle 11:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coppell High School[edit]

Salvaged from "speedy del". No vote. Mikkalai 20:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Coppell was cited among the top four percent of "America's Best High Schools" by Newsweek magazine, their band has been the recipient of a number of honors, and the Coppell High School Music Program was named "the best in the nation", according to the National Music Educators Association. --GRider\talk 20:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this one, and also "non-notable" high schools, to prevent systemic bias. Kappa 21:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • very week keep. I don't know how influential or reliable (in the scientific validty sense) Newsweek magazine is in these things, but if it is one of the top schools in Texas that is a point in its favour. 4% of American high schools is a very large number, and so its not as impressive as it might sound - not that it isn't good. Overall there are a lot of very minor claims to notability, but nothing that clinches it. At what level were the band honours? For all the article says they could be national finalists (I am assuming they would explicitly mention if they were national winners) or third placed in the city schools competition. BEEFSTEW score is 4 (ABDgh) (half marks for G and H as they're borderline imho). Thryduulf 21:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 21:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue to improve. I'm pretty proud with how quickly we've taken this article from a profanity-laden rant against the high school to a viable article. --BaronLarf 21:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems off to a good start. - SimonP 21:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this article at least tries to show notability, it does not succeed. As Thryduulf mentioned, the top 4% isn't very impressive; nor is the citation by the National Music Educators Association, as evidenced by its red link. —Korath (Talk) 21:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. High schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr 23:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not at all notable. Rls 23:46, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is more than an academic encyclopedia. Wincoote 01:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this article into the article of the town where this school is located. Zscout370 01:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I have no problem voting keep for universities and tertiary institutions but this high school is just not inherently noteworthy for inclusion. Megan1967
  • User:Dr Zen/keepschools —RaD Man (talk) 06:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the Newsweek citation makes it notable enough for me. Mgm|(talk) 08:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Coppell, Texas and delete - Skysmith 08:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, would set a bad precedent to keep this type of article (local high school). --bainer 08:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Coppell, Texas and redirect. --G Rutter 09:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Megan and Bainer. Radiant_* 10:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep needs expansion. -- Lochaber 12:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here. Gamaliel 19:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.. There is enough information to warrant keeping this school. Capitalistroadster 20:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. If article is expanded to contain more of the stuff that makes this school distinct from other schools (otherwise we might as well redirect all of these articles to high school), and less of the linkspam, then I'll vote to keep this. Otherwise, it reads very much like a medium-length article on any other school. Chris 20:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think any Wiki contributor should tolerate any objection other than 'not notable'. Especially in context of a high school which is an institution of public record. The 'not notable' crowd have a really contrived idea about what Wikipedia should be, and it's silly. Obscure entries are *exactly* what make this a useful resource. Not "what everybody already knows" Sniffandgrowl 00:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 02:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody in their right mind would even think of nominating any of Wikipedia's hundreds of railway station articles for deletion, because the consensus is that they're all notable. On the other hand, we're expected to believe that verifiable public institutions that affect the lives of thousands of people - like schools - are somehow not notable. Go figure. That's a keep, in case anyone was wondering.--Gene_poole 03:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this school's article. Notability is subjective. Also, what gene says above. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, should be deleted in line with Wikipedia's various notability policies.
  • Keep new article. Interesting, encyclopedic and notability established IMO. The original article (if you can call it that) was nothing but a POV, sour-grape rant which deserved to be posted here. - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC).
  • User:Dr Zen/keepschools Klonimus 03:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 07:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a Real Place. Ejrrjs | What? 01:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • So is my garage. Shouldn't we just merge this with the relevant town then? --InShaneee 20:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure. But why stop there? Why not merge everything into "The Universe" so Wikipedia can consist of one easily-managed article.--Gene_poole 00:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this article. Yuckfoo 20:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are noteworthy. --Zantastik 02:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School vanity, sock supported. Jonathunder 04:37, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As with all schools listed, I vote to keep.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Instantnood 07:04, Apr 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Corby[edit]

This has been marked for speedy delete for reason "not notable, grotesque mustache doesn't grant entry to Wiki" for about two days. That's not really a reason to speedy delete, so I'm moving it here. No vote from me, though I'd suggest that if this talk show host is only heard in one local area, he's unlikely to be encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 21:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Not notable. Looks like joke. Pavel Vozenilek 21:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 03:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless, ephemeral trivia. Void of substance. --Smithfarm
  • Delete satirical trivia. —Seselwa 10:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Algonquian. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Algonkian[edit]

Redirect to itselve. --Jeroenvrp 21:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No delete. This should redirect to Algonquian. (This was my mistake?) — ishwar  (SPEAK) 21:55, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

  • Besides, redirects for deletion should be listed here. android↔talk 23:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Make it a redirect to Algonquian and speedy keep. --Angr 23:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur with Angr. This entry shouldn't be here. --Smithfarm

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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, the nominator withdrew his delete vote as well. Sjakkalle 08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles Bronson (prisoner)[edit]

Nominate & vote Del but no vote on this guy who's evidently done nothing but

  1. get imprisoned for hurting someone,
  2. parlay it into a life sentence by hurting enough of those he encounters in prison,
  3. codify his scheme for staying in condition to hurt people, and
  4. win the love of a prison-groupie missionary.

This bio is essentially an orphan:

  1. LoPbN entry: "Bronson, Charles, aka Michael Peterson"
  2. bottom-of-page dab on the real Charles Bronson's bio
  3. casual example cited in a WP titling dispute.

(Could we transWiki it to WikiMuseum of Futility?)
--Jerzy (t) 21:10, 2005 Mar 30 & 22:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

  • No vote -- Template:vfd header was missing from article -- I added it. FreplySpang (talk) 22:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Charles Bronson was once classified as the most dangerous prisoner in the UK penal system. --GRider\talk 00:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notorious prisoner. Gets nearly as high a google rank as the other one. Kappa 00:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Lamentable though it is that some people are fascinated with characters of this type, this is one of the most famous criminals in the UK - more famous than some British serial killers. Wincoote 01:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons cited above. Mgm|(talk) 08:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, again for same reasons as above. -- Karada 08:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: he seems to have a fan club. Policy question: should notoriety equate to notability? --bainer 09:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Only if wikipedia aims for a Neutral Point Of View Kappa 11:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I nominated, but i've shifted in light of the evidence of notoriety. (The fan club is evidence of something else than notoriety....) Be careful what you "equate", but, yes, notoriety is notable. I don't claim to be able to evaluate the notability of his notoriety, now that P.T. Barnum's supposed dictum has been proved again: "No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (But some people, including me, make fools of themselves by overestimating the intelligence of the English-speaking peoples. And that only increases my contempt for this person.) I was mistaken in assuming i could tell that he was non-notable; others will decide whether he is notable enough for his article to deserve more respect than he does. --Jerzy (t) 22:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • No vote from nominator. See Comment thread immediately above. --Jerzy (t) 22:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Keep Encyclopedic, meaningfully relates to Actor Charles Bronson as a dimension of his fame. Sniffandgrowl 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Infamous in UK, often featured by 'The Sun', a publicity seeking convict. The page deserves to be improved to include his poetry and bizarre hostage demands (an 'inflatable doll').
  • Keep. Appears to be notorious UK criminal over long period of time. Capitalistroadster 11:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HTML Kit[edit]

Non-notable software. Advertising. -- Daniel Lawrence 22:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A pretty famous piece of shareware. "HTML kit" gets > 100,000 google hits. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep famous pieces of shareware. Kappa 00:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, it is a pretty popular shareware. It has been downloaded over a 1 million times at Download.com --Anonymous Cow 01:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep well known software. N-Man 13:32, 31 Mar 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. This article is a duplicate of the concordance at wikt:Appendix:Words From Foucault's Pendulum. It appears to have been created in order to circumvent the deletion decision of the article "List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum". The only difference is the addtion of this sentence in the header of the list. "These are either topics that don't belong in a dictionary or protologisms." I do not find that sentence to be true. All of these are, in fact, topics which do belong in a dictionary. In addition, the concordance is already linked in the main article on Foucault's Pendulum. Rossami (talk) 02:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum[edit]

I don't know how to otherwise put it, but I feel that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Not meaning to bad-mouth Foucault's Pendulum, but I fail to understand why we need to compile a list of subjects covered in this one book, as opposed to compiling a list of subject found in, say The Bible? The Elder Pliny's Natural History? The Boy Scout Manual? (I am trying very hard to put these points in neutral language, but the fact someone would consider this list appropriate for Wikipedia leaves me speechless.)

  • Foucault's Pendulum is a work that's intended to be decoded. There are subjects here that the average reader would be frustrated by, and want to immediately look up in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia makes it much easier to read this book, and if you've paged through it, you know what I'm talking about. How else are you gonna know who Adolphe Menjou is or what Joss sticks are. The boy scout manual reader doesn't need an encyclopedia. I got the idea to make this page when I saw the index for Hitchhikers Guide and thought this worked along the same lines. Maybe not. Whatever. I vote Delete Someone should turn this into a website before all the work is lost because I know readers need this.

Let's move this effort to its own webiste, & encourage the author to create an external link to it. -- llywrch 22:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - this is the sort of thing the elastic deletion clause ("No potential to become encyclopedic") is for. "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" would seem to apply as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Foucault's pendulum is an important novel, so the esoteric topics covered within it are going be very interesting to many readers. I'm depressed that you don't want wikipedia to adequately cover topics like this book, or the Bible, or Pliny's natural history. Kappa 23:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see how you read that into what xe said. The book is covered in Foucault's Pendulum (book), not in this article, and the (encyclopaedia-worthy) subjects from the book are covered in individual encyclopaedia articles. How, therefore, does suggesting the deletion of the list somehow translate into non-coverage of either the book or the subjects? Uncle G 00:59, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
      • Because it means not covering the "non-encyclopedia-worthy" subjects which may neverless be important in the book, as well as not gathering these related subjects together in an accessible form. Kappa 07:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No it doesn't mean that at all. Coverage of subjects "important to the book" but not outside of it can quite naturally go in the article on the book. Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe I just don't understand the idea here. If you're reading along and find something you want to look up, why would you look at this list instead of just looking the term up directly in Wikipedia? (By the way, if it survives vfd, don't forget to move it to List of subjects in Foucault's Pendulum.) FreplySpang (talk) 23:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This is better because those kinds of words are in every other paragraph, I suggest you try to read the book
    • P.S. Note that The Ultra-Complete Index to the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy refers to a document on WikiSource, not Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 23:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's an index, it says "word x is on page N, it's not an annotated list of links. Annotated lists of links are possibly the best form of navigation tool ever. Kappa 00:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How was this supposed to be different from List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum) ? At the moment, as far as I can tell, it's a a copy of it. Uncle G 00:59, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
    • "These are either topics that don't belong in a dictionary or protologisms. For a list of obscure but defineable words, see the concordance" Kappa 01:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) {BWT "protologism" is a newly created word that hasn't gained wide acceptance, so you shouldn't use it in encyclopedia articles.) There really aren't any protologisms in this list. Its either archaic words that people havent thought to define in wiktionary, or obscure places and things that only a semiologist would know about.
      • That's pretty much the only textual difference between this article and List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum, and it is not borne out by the rest of the article at all. Hence my question, which is still unanswered, as to how the original author intended to edit the article to make it distinct from List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum. Was this intended to be simply a "main article" broken out of the "See also" section of Foucault's Pendulum (book) (which has just been turned into rather a mess, by the way)? Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
        • Any defineable words should have been removed. What's left are encyclopedia subjects. If there are still words, clean it up.
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. RickK 01:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • WP has a great deal of lists which aren't articles. Kappa 01:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This should be a category, not an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Items in this list are important to Foucault's Pendulum, but not vice-versa. People would rightly object if someone started trying add that category to things like Jesuits. Kappa 07:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that the main reason this article is being rejected is the lingering defined words that aren't "Subjects." If people saw only a list of wikipedia articles they would be much more inclined to recognize the significance.
    • I think they recognize the significant, but Foucault just doesn't get the same number of votes that Pokemon or Star Trek does. (please sign your comments) Kappa 09:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The only way I can explain this is that all of the votes for deletion come from Rosicrucians that don't want to be found out. I don't sign theses things because I think it goes against the whole commie-ideal of wikipedia.
        • Well things are certainly more anarchic if you don't know who is saying what, LOL. Kappa 22:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy so author can preserve it elsewhere, then Merge to the parent book's article or delete. I guess WP:FICT is the closest policy. This is an interesting idea but it's not WP's purpose. Barno 16:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Its just plain useful. D&D characters get less. Further, most of these are red-links. Umberto Eco was so esoteric that wikipedia still hasent covered the stuff he mentioned in 1988. If it serves no other purpose, it is a place for people to find these links and fill them. Someone jusr started a page on Agartha and I'm looking forward to finding out WTF the Anslem of Cantebury isShadowyCaballero
    • Note: User's seventh edit, all to this article or to this VfD (and one to stub his userpage).
  • Comment: Spelling correctly helps find information quicker. Anselm was a person, Canterbury was the place he was from. Eco wasn't esoteric, just the opposite; however this book covered many esoteric chunks of information. The fact that he mentioned old movements, old secret societies, old conspiracy theories, etc. doesn't mean that they're intrinsically verifiable or meet WP's standards of significance. However, I remember wishing for a really big encyclopedia with details of these people and books and organizations. Just not sure WP is the right place to build that. Barno 19:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't think wikipedia is the right place to build a really big encyclopedia? What could be a better place? Kappa 21:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • A big encyclopaedia full of unverifiable secret societies? Please don't distort what Barno said in order to argue against it. Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
        • If the secret society is in this book, that's a verifiable fact about it and makes it significant to large numbers of people. Pokemons get articles. Kappa 09:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Barno's point would be better made if written: "Anselm was a person, Canterbury was the place he was from." Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. A sort of glossary, sort of mishmash of words/objects that happen to be mentioned in a sentence of an overrated book. The important ones can be mentioned in the Foucault's Pendulum article, things like Clavichords (a redlink which should probably be listed as clavichord) have little to do with the book, and are mentioned so many other places that one might as well have paper on the list as that. Shouldn't be a category either, as it opens up articles to have 1000 categories attached to them: "Subject in insert book here". -R. fiend 03:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Reading through the entries, this is obviously a "list of words from FP that the writer of the article didn't understand". There's all sorts of random things here, including avalon, centenary, couscous and naiad. WP is not a dictionary. Radiant_* 09:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I have a sick devotion to wikipedia. Nothing gets me going like a list full of red-links. All the crankery going around, this site is the only trustworthy source. Foucault's Pendulum, a book about crack-pot theories, is the perfect book to filter through WP because it will seperate the cookery from the verifiable facts. All of these subjects should be spell checked and blue-linked, but the list itself is highly inappropriate and should be deleted immediately.

  • Strong delete, as Wikipedia should remain an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. I note that a concordance to this effect already exists in Wikidictionary([7] ), that, incidentally, looks suspiciously like the same list. Perhaps there should simply be a link to that 'Concordance' in the Foucault's Pendulum article. Duncan France April 2 2005 [Please note: I can't find the tilde key on the computer I am at at the moment...!]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. —Seselwa 10:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A datadump of terms, a glorified glossary for a single work of fiction? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Awasthi[edit]

Non-notable, unprovable claim of the surname being significant.

  • Delete: Ragib 22:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I want to add that the place for surname promotions should be genealogy project of wikipedia, (http://genealogy.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page). There are hundreds of thousands of surnames in India and in Asia, and an encyclopedia is not the place to promote them, unless that represents a completely different clan/caste/tribe etc. So, I'd affirm my vote for deleting this and/or moving it to genealogy site. Ragib 21:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, geneology, possible family vanity. Megan1967 03:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable surname with strong regional affiliation and social implications. Definitely not family vanity. Unlike Anglo-Saxon surnames, Indian surnames are different than Anglo-Saxon ones; often they indicate that a person originates from a particular region or subculture. There are lots of regions in India where almost everyone has the same last name! Second, as the article implies, surnames in India have meaningful social implications. Don't vote off the cuff. Say delete only if you know something about India and have valid reasons. Geneology is a purely Western phenomenon. Our judgements of "significance" and "notability" can easily carry a Western-centric bias. In conclusion, I would argue that some surnames are notable simply for being common and widespread, and this one obviously satisfies that criterion, albeit on a regional level. --Smithfarm
  • Strong keep . Indian surnames have links to the history of a region . This article should not be deleted but can be merged under a broader topic. I TOTALLY support Smithfarms view on this vote. Leningrad 09:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep . Indian surnames are different from Anglo Saxon names and relate to regions or customs/traditions. The best way for keeping these articles would be grouping them under a broader group on Indian Surnames. I thank Smithfarm for his in-depth views on this article and in-fact to be honest, am surprised a bit on his knowledge of the Indian social system. The social system is so varied in India, that the same community when you move from one state to another, will change their food habits, customs, traditions and even marriage criteria etc. So if Brahmins by surname 'Awasthi' dont allow marriages in same family; brahmins by surname Aiyyar would actually consider cousins as the first candidates for marriage. And this is only ONE of the millions of anamolies related to just surnames or regions or other criteria of 'non-notable' significance. Unless the world is not interested in knowing that kind of variations existing in it; the article may be considered fit for deleting, but then half of the rest of pages would fall in that kind of category.

Bobby Awasthi

  • Strong keep – I fully agree with Smithfarm and Leningrad. May be, over a period of time, all such / similar articles, in some case, may have to be merged/redirected / brought under a special India specific category.
  • Keep. Interesting article that doesn't really fall into the straitjacket of genealogy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, once deciphered, Indian surnames / family names / caste / jati, etc. have mythological, historical and sociological significance and the information so revealed work as a socio-historical DNA fingerprinting. After all, the recorded Indian civilization stretches back to 500+ BC and Indian mythology and epics are even older.

Any article about (Indian) surnames / family names have nothing to do with promoting one’s image or family name, or to do anything with genealogy. In the Indian subcontinent, people of different faiths, and diverse regions, may have the same family name / surname, for example, “Choudhary” is a surname / family name, which a muslim family may have in Dhaka, Bangla Desh and a Hindu family may have in Lucknow, India. All said and done, I reiterate that the fact remains that Indian surnames/family names have historical and sociological significance and they function like socio-historical DNA fingerprints. Wikipedia and we, the Wikipedians should continue to contribute to enrich “the sum total of human knowledge”, of course, conforming to the Wikian philosophy and standard. And, so all bit of information is necessary, so that a seeker of knowledge should not return empty handed from wikipedia. Yes, sure, Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.- --Bhadani 17:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)yes, I am to edit this article, right now.--Bhadani 17:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I actually agree with the socks on this one! Bhadani's statement cinched it for me. - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) The Untouchables first record that was Twist-n-Shake b/w Dance Beat, released on their own Dancebeat label in 1982. Then came 1983's Tropical Bird b/w The General. Tropical Bird was a pretty traditional ska number with jungle overtones.The General was a classic two-tone sounding dance tune.

Their first 12" was a six song EP('84) -- Live & Let Dance, that included originals like Free Yourself, Lebanon, Whiplash and What's Gone Wrong -- all of which got some local play on KROQ during the mid-80s -- mostly Rodney on the Roq, but occasionaly during regular rotation as well. Also included a great cover of Stepping Stone. Their early singles and records were eagerly bought up by mods and have become rarities. It was in '84 that the Untouchables started to get recognition, becoming the posterboys for the Los Angeles mod scene appearing in movies like Repo Man and Surf II.

Their first full-length LP came in 1985 -- Wild Child. Interestingly enough, Wild Child -- the song -- was written by Tony Rugolo lead singer of The Question and was intended for The Question's own LP which -- for various reasons -- never saw the light of day. So, UTs stole, borrowed, grabbed, bought (depending on who you talk to) the song from Tony and it became the title track as well as one of their best live numbers. The entire album was musically tight and very consistent.

The compilation album The Untouchable's Live: A Decade of Dance was recorded at The Roxy in Hollywood on December 22nd 1989 -- The Untouchables: Cool Beginnings Rare and Unreleased 1981 - 1983. Cool Beginnings reaches back into Los Angeles mod antiquity to dredge up some really rough live, and bedroom studio, recordings. Rough like uncut diamonds, rough gems: Ska Mods, Mod Knights, Another Late Night, Motion Like Hers, and The General, to name a few.

The Untouchables early shows were great for their intensity, incredibly energy, and like the LA scene at that time, immaturity. Early on, they did a stint as the house band at the Roxy, and were the mod/ska band to see every weekend at places like The Timbers, Oscar's Cornhusker, Mama Brown's Backdoor, Fenders and even the Golden Bear in Huntington Beach. The liner notes for Cool Beginnings says of their years at the Roxy, "Color barriers were smashed as black and white youths came from neighboring cities and counties to join the mod revival in unity, harmony and ska. 1983 was a very good year for ska mods in Hollywood."

The Untouchables were the impetus for bands such as Fishbone, and later for numerous California ska acts like (early, early, early) No Doubt, Donkey Show, Skeletones and Let's Go Bowling.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to goblet drum. —Korath (Talk) 00:56, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Darabukka[edit]

Not worthy. Delete --Neigel von Teighen 23:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Uh... how not? Britannica has an article on it - several thousand google results. This is another complete waste of the community's time, an absolutely pathetic nomination. --Oldak Quill 23:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's not worth to keep... But you're free to vote and that's the idea of the VfD. --Neigel von Teighen 23:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Let's see... improperly nominated, no reason given for nomination, has an article in a paper encyclopedia. This would be much better served as a redirect to Goblet drum, since it is mentioned there, and the link from dumbek goes there, as well. android↔talk 23:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't see that the VfD notice had been removed. Regardless of how pathetic you believe the nomination is, OldakQuill, please don't remove the notice. (The cleanup, however, is a good thing.) android↔talk 23:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • It was an accidental removal, NvT and I similtaneously edited. I certainly do not wish to impede the VfD process, no matter how silly a nomination I believe this to be. --Oldak Quill 23:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So far the article hasn't told me a single thing to differentiate it from a generic goblet drum, so either keep or redirect there. Meelar (talk) 23:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Goblet drum. Megan1967 03:44, 31 Mar 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. Three of the keep votes are counted as one due to possiblity of sockpuppets. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobacherie[edit]

Text says "Some people think it was invented by British mentalist, Derren Brown"... Some people? Who? I suspect original research. --Neigel von Teighen 23:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism. Wow, we've reached a Google singularity — exactly one hit. android↔talk 23:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cool, a Googlewhackblatt! Delete before we contaminate this rare specimen with additional Google. Meelar (talk) 01:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this neologism. And as an amateur magician, I can tell with sufficient certainty that mentalists have better things to do than make up words. Mgm|(talk) 08:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, what they said. -- Infrogmation 01:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. -- Dcfleck 14:31, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism --Wtshymanski 04:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete imaginary word. —Seselwa 10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is not an imaginary word or a spoof. The Wikipedia entry clearly charts the etymology of the term - Mr Twain 01:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This has to be kept. Simply because of the above comment by Mr Twain. It is true, cynics amongst you. - Simplicitymatures 10.30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a real word and should thus be given the appropriate status. Everyone now accepts the meaning of quark; this is the same, just give it time.- TediousPhoenix 10:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because i say so :) this word does have a real meaning!- Terrorvicky 11:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's clearly a bit of nonsense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Mel - on what grounds do you base your assumption that it's "clearly" a bit of "nonsense" - when the etymology described in the entry suggests otherwise? You appear to be employing the "clarity" that comes from a lack of knowledge of the term under discussion, or it's localised usage within its originating subculture. Mr Twain 11:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, you mean: “The origin of the word is unknown”? In any case, etymologies prove nothing; it's very easy to create a word and give it an etymology, and false etymologies are common (the Romans produced hundreds of them).
        Incidentally, you're not signed in, so it's not ceratin that you're the person you're signing as. Also, it looks very much as though you've created three accounts in order to vote for this; it should be easy enough to establish by checking the IP addresses. Would you care to confess now, and get it off your chest? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • But the etymology of the word in this instance is entirely genuine - a product of a particular subculture and validated by its use within that subculture. I can frankly find no reason why anyone would wish to contribute a "fake" entry, but perhaps that's because I'm personally not predisposed to prankery. By all means - go ahead and check the IP addresses of the other users voting. You will find that they are separate people. For a second time - you appear to be jumping to a conclusion based on a value judgement rather than the evidence presented. This is disappointing given the statements in your profile about your personal policy towards the aggressive and random deletion of topics that exist outside the Wikipedia regular's immediate sphere of knowledge. Mr Twain 12:13, 5 Apr 2005 (BST)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FK Sanumar[edit]

Apparently someone has entered a web-based football management simulation game called Hattrick, and this is the name they have given to their team. Apparently there are 500,000 such teams; this one is in a lowly Latvian league. Delete as unencyclopedic and non-notable. --Henrygb 23:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete teams in web-based football management simulation games as non-notable. Mgm|(talk) 08:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamecruft, no potential to become encyclopedic. I play United, the same type of game. Even champions in international tournaments of league champions of these games aren't WP-worthy, and this listing of an ordinary team appears to be simple vanity. Barno 16:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mrwojo 15:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Alford[edit]

Vanity page. Recommend for deletion. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If there isn't an "obvious vanity" criterion for speedy deletion, there needs to be. android↔talk 23:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I thought there was a speedy delete criterion for vanity pages, but when I got ready to do the deed, I checked and it looks like it isn't supposed to be handled that way. I think that we often do, though. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • ... which is an abuse of the speedy deletion process, and not to be encouraged. Enough vanity pages have been rescued from deletion as rewrites, name disambiguations, and whatnot, to show that two editors are not enough. My vote is Delete, by the way. This article (including the expanded version in the history) provides nothing, not even the pet cat, to distinguish this person from tens of thousands of other twenty-something computer programmers. Now Matthew Alford the Associate Professor of Oceanography [8] might pass the Average Professor Test ... Uncle G 01:14, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Note that he also tried to add himself to May 7. —Korath (Talk) 00:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. —Seselwa 10:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Player (dating)[edit]

This page is not encylopedia and has no potential to become so. Thus it should be deleted. An entry at Wiktionary could possibly be created.--Plainsong 23:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is encyclopedic, and is already more than a dicdef. Well-written article that could be expanded upon. android↔talk 00:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. More than a dictionary definition. --GRider\talk 00:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Zscout370 01:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slang dictdef. —Lowellian (talk) 01:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable "role" in some cultures. Kappa 07:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef (already in wikt). Radiant!Radiant_* 09:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slangcruft. ComCat 02:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's more than a dicdef, it's not much more. -R. fiend 03:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - all nouns (imho) have a place in wikipedia. Kingturtle 17:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It's not just a slang term, it's a whole lifestyle. --FuriousFreddy 16:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a dictionary definition. It does not belong here. --Zantastik 02:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Landslide (board game)[edit]

Advertising. Also, no evidence presented indicating any notability. Google search for landslide exakly yields only 20 hits. Delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Your search criteria actually include "ezakly", a name from the publisher's website, not "exakly", in case someone questions your Google results based on that or thinks it's "exactly". Barno 20:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree: it's advertising. Delete. --Plainsong 00:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. There was also a Parker Brothers game with the same name, which is not totally unremembered: for a game from 1974, there are enough comments on boardgamegeek.com to make it encyclopedic. I edited the article: added Parker Brothers game, and removed the advertising. Eugene van der Pijll 19:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak weak keep for EvdP's revised article, mainly for the sake of disambiguation. WP is not a gamers' guide. The new game by that name has not yet established notability sufficient for WP's purposes, and its info link is advertising. I doubt that the new game (with dice controlling movement around a one-lane track like Monopoly) will ever be as good a game as Campaign Trail or some other election games. From a small publisher, it probably won't become more famous or influential than a thousand other boardgames. The 1971 game wasn't influential except by virtue of Parker Brothers distribution getting it into many stores. It isn't nearly as well-known as contemporary PB and Milton Bradley games such as Stratego or The Game Of Life, and it never spawned a play-by-mail or tournament hobby as did Diplomacy. Barno 20:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the edited article. The PB game may not have been a mega-hit, but it certainly was not obscure in its day. Shimmin 00:35, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dejvid 12:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_March_30&oldid=1081092672"