Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20[edit]

      • The 'suck my sock' vandalism earlier today courtesy of User:82.45.6.170, who put a large blinking div in the Damon Saito Mattinson. Possible server bug because it thoroughly messes up the entire VfD listing.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tazrian[edit]

Tazrian is a vanity page listing a Non notable person.

  • Delete: Non notable person, most probably created by newbie user. --Ragib 00:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - GSGold 00:25, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 19:21, 20 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dinelle's foodmart[edit]

More stealth/fiction vandalism from SamuraiClinton, near as I can tell. Zero hits. Even if true, seems unverifiable, and is a small store or two notable?Niteowlneils 00:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep if you obtain more proof of notability. We shop at Dinelle's when we go to our summer cottage on Pine Island (Ontario). A way to find more proof is to go to Echo Bay, Ontario and Richard's Landing, Ontario. Here is more proof that it is real; go to this weblink: http://www.communitypowerpoints.com/bm/a-e/dinelles/dinelles.html. --TheSamurai 03:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that the grocery store exists, and that you and your family shop there does not make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. VladMV ٭ talk 19:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would take a lot for a grocery store to even approach the level of notability necessary for inclusion, and this doesn't even come close. SamuraiClinton/GoofyGuy, please stop creating these junk articles. android↔talk 04:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable grocery store. RickK 05:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages CDC (talk) 16:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 19:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial grocerycruft. Binadot 02:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So not notable. Jonathunder 04:40, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. VladMV ٭ talk 19:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yellow pages stuff. - Marcika 04:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do we have to go through Vfd time and again with this guy? Samurai, why do you do it? Why not create some real content? Fawcett5 21:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This place actually exists, and I thought it would be worth making an article about. Just go to Echo Bay, Ontario; and you will see it there, also go to Richard's Landing. I have the best intentions for Wikipedia, and I feel bad for people criticizing my VfD articles. To me, VfD is just a mistake emblem despite of good intentions; forgive me once and 4 all! --TheSamurai 01:41, 26 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Detroit Neons[edit]

More stealth/fiction vandalism from SamuraiClinton, near as I can tell. One of the two hits are the WP Detroit article, which only has the name because SamuraiClinton added it. Even if true, seems unverifiable. Niteowlneils 00:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fiction or no, 2 Google hits? Not notable. android↔talk 04:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I also can find no evidence that this is true. Delete unless authoritatively verified. Rossami (talk) 05:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There is one semi-official mention of the team, buried deep in a profile of the St Clair County district by the local Economic Development Alliance, which merely states the team was an indoor soccer team. I'm not impressed to be honest, and would suggest a merge to the league article if not for the fact that nobody has found out what league they played in, and the league probably doesn't have an article anyway. So Delete. Average Earthman 10:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 19:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and somebody ban User:SamuraiClinton already. Binadot 02:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't verify, source is known creater of spurious articles. Fawcett5 22:00, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Club Roast[edit]

More stealth/fiction vandalism from SamuraiClinton, near as I can tell. "Official title" gets zero hits, and other combinations just get hits for the NYC Friar's club roast of CC. A visit to the Comedy Central 'TV shows' page didn't provide any confirmation of any of the names mentioned. Niteowlneils 00:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This actually is a TV show, go to IMDb.com and type in "club roast", and look for a result that says "Chevy Chase" and it will prove you that it actually exists. --GoofyGuy 03:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, no, it's a TV special, and it wasn't hosted by Chase, he's the one who got roasted. I don't think the name of the show is actually Club Roast, either, since it's the Friar's Club where these things usually take place. If anything is determined to be salvagable, Merge into roast, where there's already a little bit of info on events of this type; otherwise, Delete. android↔talk 05:04, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I also failed to find the show alleged by SamuraiClinton using those directions. Delete as unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Warn both Users that they will be blocked if they continue to post hoaxes like this. The IMDb article returned is for "New York Friar's Club Roast". Entirely different thing. RickK 05:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, there's only one problematic user here; User:SamuraiClinton signs his VfD posts as GoofyGuy. android↔talk 05:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Radiant_* 19:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patently a hoax. We should also consider imposing a ban on SamuraiClinton. Binadot 02:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am sorry for making a bogus contribution, I have the best intentions for Wikipedia, and sometimes my contributions for Wikipedia have a VfD, and that shouldn't spark any suspicion on me, so just delete club roast since I found out about the bogusness of it. --TheSamurai 00:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since even the creator calls it "bogusness". Jonathunder 05:27, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. SumuraiHoax. Fawcett5 22:02, 25 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 04:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[[1]][edit]

Pure advertising with no encyclopedic potential. Given the benefit of the doubt, the contributor doesn't seem to have realised what Wikipedia is. Delete anyway --Rlandmann 01:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • "We are writing this article to get a general idea of what the public is looking for in a site like this". Last I checked, the public loathed spam. I certainly do, at least. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 02:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ragib
  • Delete --Minghong 11:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, preferably fast. Pure spam, bad title. jni 11:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - please someone include this kind of crap in WP:CSD. Chris 17:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam - David Gerard 19:28, 20 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Razvan Gheorghiu[edit]

This article was created at Romanian footballers. It got tagged for deletion because "orphan article about unimportant players. if anything, does not belong at this name". I've moved it to this title, but it's still an orphan. No vote. Kappa 02:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. 32 Google hits, most of which go to a lawyer, not an athlete. android↔talk 05:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably vanity. --Dryazan 05:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. "Razvan Gheorghiu" + football gets 0 hits. I'm willing to admit that google is probably biased against Romanians, so if anyone can prove that he actually exists, I'd change my vote to keep. DaveTheRed 05:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without verifiability - David Gerard 19:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seaching "Razvan Gheorghiu" + fotbal (in Romanian) gets no results. Bogdan | Talk 11:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If he's not on the net at all, he is probably not notable enough. - Marcika 04:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BS, cryptic Al Qaida communication, vanity, who knows? Unverifiable anyway. Fawcett5 22:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I may have seen his name in a Romanian-American newspaper, but he's not notable enough yet. Rather than this, I'd rather see a new article on a Romanian linguist or a Romanian female swimsuit model or something (with photos). Decius 08:10, 26 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

MoneyGram[edit]

Looks awfully spammy. Might be salvagable, but I'm not sure how. -- Scott eiπ 03:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advert. — Ливай | ☺ 03:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Notable competitor of Western Union, at least in my area. Vote will change to Strong Keep if the article is de-spamified and expanded. I might try to salvage this one myself. android↔talk 05:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Real product, but definitely needs work. Chris 17:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - real product, deserves article. Needs cleanup, though - David Gerard 19:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up and keep. —Caesura 21:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep World famous business. Marked "cleanup" and categorised to "business". Wincoote 10:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and make into a more neutral article about the company. - Marcika 04:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but why a business and not a company, or is it both? They have a stock ticker. Maybe the page is misnamed and should be MoneyGram International with a redirect from the current page.Vegaswikian 08:20, 25 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 merge and redirect to 8-Bit Theater. —Korath (Talk) 01:27, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sword-chuck[edit]

This article can't be expanded very much beyond what's there. Either Delete or Redirect to the 8-Bit Theater page. Nifboy 03:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to 8-Bit Theater. Seems like the info could fit comfortably there. DaveTheRed 05:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, merge. Radiant_* 11:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - David Gerard 19:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. —Caesura 21:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect; was it ever more than a one-off joke? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - But add a link to the 8-Bit Article User:Sabel4 This vote actually by 66.144.185.21 (talk · contribs), who has fifteen edits.
  • Delete or merge. Fancruft. Fawcett5 22:08, 25 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 - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 17:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Khawja Shams-ud-din Azeemi[edit]

Blatant self-promotion, probably non-notable (gets 27 google hits). Delete. - Mustafaa 04:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, under the bar of notability, promo. Megan1967 09:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Leader of a religious sect, published author. RickK 09:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • If RickK says keep ... probably a keep! Could do with verifiability - David Gerard 19:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is a copy-and-paste from [www.muraqaba.com], so could be a copy vio—not discounting that the article may have been writted by the owner of that site. It (the site) seems to be a promotion for the book, ISBN 0975887548, rather than a home for the Silsila-Azeemia order; which gives a longer biographical sketch of Azeemi. The Muraqaba site is registered to Plato Publishing Inc. in Houston, and the Silsila-Azeemia site to Cyber World in Abu Dhabi. DialUp 20:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reads like it was scanned right from the dust jacket. Delete this promo. Edeans 03:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What RickK said, though it should probably be sent to clean up and it should be moved to the correct spelling of Khawaja Shams-ud-din Azeemi [2] as opposed to Khawja Shams-ud-din Azeemi [3]. -JCarriker 09:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I marked this copyvio. Fawcett5 22:28, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bogfly[edit]

Is this hoax? "Bogfly" googles to 130 hits [4], none seems to refer to a "bog" insect. My vote is Delete this nonsense unless a biologist states this is not a joke. vlad_mv 04:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete at present. Almost certainly a hoax. If it turns out to be genuine slang, then transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 07:33, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • It's an attempt to coin a slang term. Wiktionary won't want it, because it is not attested as a word. Even its occurrence as a mis-spelling of botfly is uncommon. Delete. Uncle G 17:10, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism - David Gerard 19:31, 20 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Houses in Finland[edit]

Poss org research? Does not establish to much on houses in Finland that cant not be said about other houses around the world. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Finland. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replace Finland with Minnesota and the article still holds true, except for possibly the part about the glazed windows. I don't see how anything described here would be different if it were applied to houses built in any other cold climate. android↔talk 05:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, but that's only because "minne sota" means "war to where?" in Finnish. =) — JIP | Talk 09:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Seriously? It means "sky-tinted water" in the language of the native peoples that live here; IIRC, it was the Ojibwe. android↔talk 13:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, seriously, it does mean "war to where?" in Finnish. Of course, it was named after the Ojibwe phrase. The Finnish meaning is pure coincidence. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I knew that; I meant to say "it was the Ojibwe who provided the name for the state" but I conveniently left off that last part... Funny coincidence, though. :o) android↔talk 14:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • (Completely off topic, but see Minnesota River for the name origin. It came from the Dakota Sioux language, not Ojib.) Jonathunder 04:13, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
              • So "to where?" means "water" and "war" means "sky-tinted". Gotcha. — JIP | Talk 19:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa 10:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replace Finland with Germany and the part about the glazed windows also holds true. vlad_mv 14:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 19:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article name (unless we want Trees in Belgium and Grass in Australia as well). Merge content, if not already done so. Radiant_* 19:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • No Grass in Australia for wikipedia, ever? and deletionists talk about "consensus". Kappa 21:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe consensus holds that Australian grass is pretty much similar to grass anywhere else. Would you care to explain what your point is with this and other veiled statements of discontent you have made over the past week? It's not that I feel particularly attacked by what you say, it's just that I'm entirely unsure what you are trying to accomplish. Radiant_* 21:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Grass is an important plant, and Australia is a large region. If you want to restrict wikipedia that much, you will have to do it by force of numbers, not by persuasion. Kappa 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, and the combination of two important topics is not in and of itself important. This has nothing to do with restricting WikiPedia, it has to do with common sense. I dare you to write an interesting article about Milk in Spain, Oaks in Russia and/or Sidewalks on Cyprus that isn't redundant with either or both of the parent articles. I would not a priori oppose any of them but it seems obvious that, if created, they would quickly be removed for being unable to have meaningful content. Radiant_* 08:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree. I'm a Finn myself, and rather proud of my country, and houses sure are useful things, but I still don't see anything particularly encyclopedic in this article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • OK wikipedia can never hope to tell me how much milk is produced in Spain, by what kinds of animals and what particular varieties of cow, sheep etc, how much is processed into cheese and yogurt, how much is imported/exported, how much is pasteurised and when, what companies distribute it, how it is packaged and marketed, how much is drunk by children and adults, and if they drink it at breakfast or with other meals, whether it is typically added to tea, coffee, or other popular drinks, whether they prefer full-cream or skimmed milk, etc, the history of all these things, and their current trends... But maybe one day a more useful open encyclopedia will come along, and whatever information WP has managed to retain can be transferred into that. Kappa 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Exactly, because such detailed statistics as you're talking about would be compiled in a primary source, and thus belong in WikiSource. And parts of it, such as whether milk is added to tea, would be original research if anyone had bothered to do it. You're welcome to prove me wrong - just write the article. Radiant_* 13:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
              • Wikipedia is not a statistics bureau. I'm sure statistics about milk production in Spain, or grass in Australia, is useful information to a lot of people, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. — JIP | Talk 13:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I wasn't talking about statistics. Kappa 20:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • That's true, but I still have to agree with User:Radiant!. There's nothing encyclopedic about grass in Australia, milk in Spain, or houses in Finland that isn't encyclopedic about grass, milk or houses in general. Would you want hundreds of articles saying "Grass in eastern Katajanokka is pretty much the same as grass everywhere else in Helsinki" and nothing else? — JIP | Talk 10:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                    • Your definition of 'encyclopedic' is obviously very different from mine. Of course if you make the focus small enough there isn't much difference from one place to another, but there are very important and specific differences between milk in Spain and milk in the rest of Europe, to say nothing of grass in Australia and in the rest of the world. Kappa 03:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                      • Really? What sort of important and specific differences are they, then? — JIP | Talk 08:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete tells nothing that is specific to Finnish housing. Mgm|(talk) 10:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic.
  • Delete, housecruft. ComCat 01:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article on different methods of housing construction in different climates around the world, or perhaps even within Europe, could be interesting and encyclopedic. This just isn't. Jonathunder 16:25, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Frankly, the Monty Python song about Finland is more informative than this article. Delete. Edeans 03:38, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[group][edit]

Looks as if some part os someones research paper. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No original research or homework projects. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ragib
  • Copyvio. Given that it was rearranged seemingly at random from the source pdf, it might be speedyable as patent nonsense besides. —Korath (Talk) 04:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, mistitled copyvio. Mgm|(talk) 12:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lindblum[edit]

Band of limited notability - no information to be found on google or allmusic. Possible vanity. JeremyA 04:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 19:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article on the FFIX city would have been more notable. Xezbeth 19:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Band vanity. Fawcett5 22:32, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 17:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hierarchy of town settlement[edit]

While I believe that this was a good faith contribution, I believe that it is original research. I am not aware of this "spectrum" as a recognized set of classes in urban planning, demographic analysis or cartography. I'm willing to be proven wrong but the article is also, unfortunately, incorrect. The correct distinction between a village and a hamlet is whether or not it has a church. Likewise, the technical difference between a town and a city is whether or not it has a cathedral. (I did not correct the article because that would have reduced it to a mere list of dictionary definitions.) Rossami (talk) 05:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Another suspect post by User:SamuraiClinton. RickK 06:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, there is something to be said about this; I don't know if we have it anywhere, but this isn't it. --SPUI (talk) 08:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, while there might be some scope for this sort of information in some article, this is not an auspicious beginning. I'm not sure where Rossami hails from, but in the U.S., the distinctions have little if anything to do with churches or cathedrals. But that only begins to highlight problems in that there are likely many cultural differences in how these terms are used. older≠wiser 15:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research without independent verification - David Gerard 19:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as mentioned by previous two voters. In some USA states, a "town" is formally a minor civil division: counties are divided into towns, and a town may contain zero, one, or several villages or other census places. In other states, "town" is informally equivalent to "village". In neither case are the old British church/cathedral definitions valid. The edit history of the article's poster raises suspicion of verifiability, and VfD voters have already demonstrated that there is not a single international standard for such things. Barno 21:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another User:SamuraiClinton timewaste. Actually one his better contributions, but as others point out there is no universal standard that would support his scheme. Fawcett5 22:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I initially hoped that an article like this could become a good but brief direction over English usage in this tricky field (for many foreigners aswell as for some native English speakers), but seeing the arguments above, I guess the best thing would be to delete this article and wait for something better. Ruhrjung 08:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 17:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Pussy Wagon[edit]

This orphan article is trivia from the movie Kill Bill. As far as I can tell, it is not in any way crucial to the plot or I would have been bold and merged it. I don't see any way to expand this into a real encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 05:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This vehicle is in no way integral to the plot; it's really just a sight gag. See also Sheepdog van. android↔talk 06:13, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The useful stuff is already mentioned in Kill Bill. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 07:27, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, there's already a mention in Kill Bill, and other than that it's not notable. --SPUI (talk) 11:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful into Kill Bill and redirect. Mgm|(talk) 12:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per android's reason. Binadot 16:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too minor to merge, and most of the article is awful anyway. -R. fiend 16:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with the majority that it was just a small joke in the beginning of the movie to have an article on it. --Anonymous Cow 17:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Cburnett 18:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 19:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kill Bill. --Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As of late, the general consensus would suggest that this should be merged and redirected to Kill Bill. Such is my vote. --GRider\talk 17:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, yours is only the second vote for merge and redirect. Several others have said "redirect" but not "merge", while Mgm voted to merge "anything useful" (which is debatable, but certainly not the majority of the article could be called so). Most of the votes have been delete. -R. fiend 20:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes this is true. In general, I was referring to the overall consensus as of late pertaining to minor details that belong to larger, notable parent articles. --GRider\talk 21:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • For crying out loud, why would you change to a redirect and not merge if there's something worth keeping? Stop being obtuse. Cburnett 22:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • My point is that some people see a merge and redirect as copying the entire article in question and pasting it in another article, often very inelegantly. I would not want to see this done in this case. Most of the article should not be kept. -R. fiend 06:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Another vote to merge anything useful into the Kill Bill article. Certainly the image can be added to the KB article if it isn't already. 23skidoo 21:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Where do you think I got the picture? :) Cburnett 22:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful and redirect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no encyclopedic content worth merging. Barno 21:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But what's your problem with redirecting? Cburnett 22:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • To be specific: No encyclopedic content worth redirecting. Not a topic (neither the vehicle in a non-plot-advancing scene in a not-culturally-noteworthy movie, nor the general concept which existed decades before the movie) that a user would reasonably be searching for in WP. Barno 16:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic --Silas Snider (talk) 01:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pussycruft. ComCat 01:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge → Kill Bill. —Markaci 2005-03-22 T 03:11 Z
  • Merge / redirect to Kill Bill -- Lochaber 15:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Kill Bill. I believe that the article should remain, but I'd rather have it as part of Kill Bill than have it wiped out of existance. David Silva 03:24, 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Southern Collaboration of the Week[edit]

This has been inactive for months now, last modified Nov. 17. Even the notice board it is supposed to correspond to is inactive. I checked the "current" collaboration, Delmarva Peninsula, and it has been edited hardly at all in the last month. I don't know exacly if this is the right page to list this, but no others seem to fit. It is also clogging the Template:COTWs which is long and ugly. I propose this page be deleted.--Dmcdevit 05:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It can and will be revived at a later date when there is more interest. As for now we have a ready-made page for when that happens. Neutralitytalk 06:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry, we're a bit slower with things down here. We'll get it going soon. Gamaliel 06:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Defunct projects can (and will) be revived at a later date. I know the WikiMagic projec will. Why delete the work that's been done before? Mgm|(talk) 12:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope I didn't sound mean, I posted a question on the talk page a while back and no one responded, so I seriously thought there was no one really interested. I am glad this posting has elicited a positive response. Maybe we sould just remove it from the template and it would be a simple task of adding it once you've gathered workers together?--Dmcdevit 17:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • (also on Dmcdevit's talk page) Removing defunct or inactive COTWs from the template makes it harder for the projects to gain an audience. Why not make a seperate template or category for inactive COTWs so the main template can be cleaned up a bit without putting the projects at a disadvantage? Mgm|(talk) 10:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's fine with me, I didn't think about the publicity aspect. I guess I thought each of the regional or category COTW started out as a notice board or WikiProject, and garnered their support from within, not from outsiders, am I wrong? (I admit I've only been involved with the main COTW, AID, and CSB)--Dmcdevit 16:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure wikipedia has benefitted or will benefit from this page. Dmn / Դմն 21:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • For your information, we have built up three articles, one relating to history, one on cuisine, and one on The Miami Herald. Research before making statements like that. Mike H 05:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mike H 05:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. JCarriker 09:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) Though we really should nominate one of the three articles for featured status. (Was that not our goal?) Most Wikiprojects and boards go through lulls in activity, anyway. -JCarriker 09:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Fawcett5 22:38, 25 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 - should be merged - SimonP 19:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Internet keyboard[edit]

Another from SamuraiClinton. I can find no evidence that this concept has passed the neologism stage or is independent of computer keyboard. If this device were really at the point where it were becoming "increasingly popular", I would expect a geek like me to have heard of it. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge anything useful (of which there is little) into computer keyboard. android↔talk 06:11, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Computer keyboard. Megan1967 07:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to IBM_PC_keyboard, which already deals with this kind of keyboard in the section entitled "Keyboard layouts". It is called "multimedia keyboard" there. vlad_mv 14:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Computer keyboard. This article is just describing a regular keyboard with those little shortcut buttons. Binadot 16:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - David Gerard 19:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. —Caesura 21:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge тəzєті 18:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hogan's restaurant (Oakland County, MI)[edit]

Non-notable restaurant. Created by User:SamuraiClinton, who has a record of suspect posts. RickK 06:04, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete --SPUI (talk) 11:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. vlad_mv 14:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another business. Basically an ad. I've noticed many complaints about SamuraiClinton and his contributions, is anything official being done? -R. fiend 16:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 19:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Casual local restaurant, former Ho-Jo's. Has bar, people watch game. Yawn. Delete. Jonathunder 03:49, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Telegraph/Maple Intersection[edit]

Non-notable roadcruft. RickK 06:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Roadcruft. Gamaliel 06:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, roadcruft. Megan1967 07:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with US 24. This part of US 24 was a testing ground for the Michigan left and other strange intersection designs like this. Delete --SPUI (talk) 08:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More of SamuraiClinton's junk. I don't really see anything to merge. -R. fiend 16:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh, I confused this with another more notable intersection. Anyway, I've added some to US 24#Notes, though it's not directly related to this article. --SPUI (talk) 18:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete road trivia. Gazpacho 18:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another roadcruft from SamuraiClinton. VladMV ٭ talk 04:57, 25 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 - sould be merged somewhere - SimonP 19:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Old 27 (Clinton County, MI)[edit]

Roadcruft. RickK 06:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, roadcruft. Megan1967 07:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Unnumbered Michigan State Trunklines or the like. US 27 (or US 127, which has taken over that part of 27). I believe "Old 27" is a signed designation, not just on street signs but on actual route shields. --SPUI (talk) 11:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. US-27 no longer exists in Michigan. In many, but not all, places it has been supplanted by US-127. I have never see the "Old 27" designation on a highway "shield" sign. The designation is common on ordinary roadside signage. older≠wiser 16:12, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it's like this in Clinton County, but it's signed in Otsego County. It would probably be best to have one page for all these state maintained but unnumbered state highways. --SPUI (talk) 16:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • In that particular case, it appears to be a county road sign, not a state highway shield. Counties can pretty much use whatever signage they like for county roads. older≠wiser 16:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article covering US_27 already has this information. Having the information here is pretty redundant, and creating a specifice entry for the stretch in Clinton County is really going overboard. If there's any useful info here that can be merged into US_27 then do so, but I think this title is too specific to even hang on to as a redirect. Arkyan 19:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually this is the old pre-freeway alignment. Everything talked about in US 27 happened after the freeway was built in this area. --SPUI (talk) 21:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to US 27 and delete; major transport routes that are superceded remain notable (cf. Dixie Highway). Gazpacho 07:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    or if it can't be deleted, rename it to Old 27 and delete the redirect before merging. This title is useless. Gazpacho 14:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Arkyan. Edeans 03:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless title. Merge anything useful into U.S. Highway 27. Jonathunder 04:01, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 19:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Three Rings Design[edit]

Advertising. Vanity. RickK 06:57, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • There is nothing in the article to indicate the company is notable. Delete --Smithfarm 11:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising CDC (talk) 16:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without third-party verifiability - David Gerard 19:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs heavy cleanup to remove the "comes to us" first-person type stuff -- in fact, most or all of the individual staff descriptions could be eliminated. Nevertheless, an article about a company isn't thereby advertising. Maybe I'm biased because a friend of mine plays this company's Puzzle Pirates game, but, in general, I think Wikipedia should cover corporations, at least those that interact with the public and aren't purely local and minor. JamesMLane 08:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement for non-notable company. Fawcett5 22:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I know I might be late but: Keep. AFAIK, Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates was quite a success, especially considering they were an indie developer. The article needs work though. Mrwojo 19:54, 26 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wwto2[edit]

Non-notable website. RickK 07:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Known vandal (for bit complicated details see users talk page). Pavel Vozenilek 10:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 19:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, website ad. Megan1967 07:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Spam. - Marcika 04:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement? Fawcett5 22:42, 25 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 U.S. Highway 23#Michigan. —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sunrise Side Coastal Highway[edit]

More roadcruft. RickK 07:14, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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) 01:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Autococker[edit]

Vanity? Advertising? Non-notable, anyway. RickK 08:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

no vote - Secret option D, none of the above. :-P I'm not quite sure how it would be vanity, and I'm not affiliated with any of the companies who make a profit from the Autococker. Write it off as non-notable if you like, but if you want to do that, you should probably put up the rest of Category:Paintball for deletion as well. I saw Angel (paintball) (an Angel is a specific type of paintball marker (gun)) in there, with a comparitively sucky amount of information, and it lives. An Autococker is a specific type of paintball marker as well, and it is unrivaled popularity wise in the sport of paintball so I felt it needed an entry (I'll try to do a few more for other markers once I get all the information for this filled in). Finally, maybe it isn't notable for you, but for someone who happened to be interested in paintball, it sure as hell would be. Kobold 10:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - Looks useful for people interested in paintball. If you want to delete this you may as well delete all that Star Wars junk too -- except this has a real world application. Robinoke 11:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be useful enough. Kobold, I recommend you finish an article in your own user space before posting it to avoid having it deleted straight away. And please start the article by explaining what an autococker is with a definition in the first line. Mgm|(talk) 12:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could be of interest to paintball fans. Binadot 16:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs work, but keep - David Gerard 19:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but should possibly have the title changed to be more descriptive. RJFJR 22:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is the Wikipedia:Google test a fair barometer in this instance? When one takes into consideration that we've kept a number of minor articles which garnered less than twenty (20) googles, how is importance and notability not being demonstrated in this article? --GRider\talk 17:20, 21 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 - moved to user namespace - SimonP 19:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Internet/Self-destructive subcultures (proposed)[edit]

A proposed(=temp) page that has not been worked on since 29 Jan. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I created this and have worked on it, but it now seems unlikely that it will be used as the feeling is that the section probably doesn't belong on the Internet article. Some of us agree that it probably deserves to be a section somewhere, as its been around in the Internet article for a long time, maybe on the world wide web article, or perhaps somewhere else instead (e.g. an article dealing with social trends or groups on the internet/www/other new media). I haven't had much involvemnt with the www article, and my energies have been elsewhere recently. If the vote is to delete it, and nobody objects, I am happy to have this moved to my user space. no vote. Thryduulf 09:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Thryduulf's namespace. Binadot 16:41, 20 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Popwhore[edit]

Popwhore +"roman method" gets zero Google hits. popwhore +"tatum reed" gets zero Google hits. And why is there a link from this page to the image of Greenland? RickK 08:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • None of the film titles listed can be found at imdb, nor is Popwhore listed. It's beginning to look more and more like the anon author of this page is using it to make an attack page. RickK 09:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • And now the anon has added the word jarb to the article. RickK 09:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be a personal attack. --SPUI (talk) 11:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not on IMDB, delete. Mgm|(talk) 12:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. The Internet Adult Film Database [5] doesn't have any actress named "Popwhore". Some of the films listed on the page can be found there; none features "Popwhore". Even if it could be verified, seems nn to me. vlad_mv 15:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Porn stars have to be truly notable above and beyond banging people in front of a camera to be encyclopedic. This one doesn't even seem to be an average porn star, if she exists at all. -R. fiend 16:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 19:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as this nomination appears meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Procedure_for_deletion. --GRider\talk 17:45, 21 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Baron Cunard[edit]

Baron Cunard is simply wrong. A baronet is not a baron, there is no "Baron Cunard", and there never has been one (or two)! - Nunh-huh 08:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Are you sure? The article seems to have been lifted verbatim, except for the addition of the parenthetical "(not)", from here. There is an interesting list of peerage titles on that site as well. --Smithfarm 10:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, they lifted it from here, they mirror Wikipedia (see the backlink to us at the bottom of their page?). Yes, I'm sure. There are no listings for a Cunard barony in The Complete Peerage or in Burke's Peerage and Baronetage. It seems clear that the article results from someone confusing "baronet" for "baron". A Google search for "Baron Cunard" shows about 10 hits, all of them the result of Wikipedia's misinformation. - Nunh-huh 10:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, see it now. You are saying that Samuel Cunard was a baronet, not a baron. Aside from the baronet/baron confusion, is the rest of the info in the article correct? Could the article be salvaged by changing references to "Baron" to "Baronet" and changing the title to something like "Cunard Baronetage"? --Smithfarm 11:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There seems little reason to do so, unless you propose making an article for every baronetcy. - Nunh-huh 12:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, only the notable ones. The Cunard Baronetcy could be argued to be notable because of Samuel Cunard. Now, the Wikipedia article on Samuel Canard says he is the 1st Baronet in the line. But the article doesn't say who the others were, which would whet my curiosity if I saw it. Seems like this improperly named "Baron Cunard" article is providing that information. So, possible merge to Samuel Cunard? --Smithfarm
Yes, any baronetcy could be argued to be notable, though it's hard to think of one that is. This one isn't. His son was the 2nd and last Bt. There's nothing to merge here. Cunard is famous for his accomplishments, not for his baronetcy. - Nunh-huh 14:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm suggesting on the relevant talk page that we strike the words 1st Baronet from the title to the Samuel Cunard article, as he is not notable for his Baronet-ness, much less for the fact that he is the 1st of these insignificant creatures. That will solve the problem for me and we can delete. --Smithfarm
  • Delete - David Gerard 19:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree to delete. Note also that creator JillandJack is a banned user who has a history of very problematic edits to Canadian history articles. Bearcat 00:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 23:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unneccesary since the peerage is extinct, and Samuel Cunard has his own article.Fawcett5 22:46, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Roman Method[edit]

Neologism created by non-notable so-called erotic actress whose own page is also listed for VfD. RickK 08:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Jarb[edit]

A newly invented word from some persons blog. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is jarb. RickK 09:13, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete on the caca. --SPUI (talk) 11:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Robinoke 11:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Mgm|(talk) 12:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 19:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity neologism. Megan1967 07:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete You did a great jarb out there, Homestar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur is neologism. Fawcett5 22:48, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Janet Biehl[edit]

A 60's "radical", article does not establish why she is different or stands out from the rest of the "radicals" or how she is notable enough to be placed among the more influential "radicals" of the time, smells a bit o vanity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Published author, though perhaps of borderline notability. See her Biography and Selected Works. --Smithfarm
  • Keep. If you can find out more about her though, send this article through cleanup though, cause this does smell a bit of vanity. ParkingStones 18:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyright violation see [6] Will report this now.Capitalistroadster 19:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if and when that copyvio is cleaned up. Published author appears notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 07:28, 21 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.
SimonP 19:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) The result of the debate was - no consensus. Radiant_* 11:56, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger[edit]

This article was originally VfD'd at Talk:Walking the Tiger/Archive:Votes for deletion:How to heal traumas. Vote was to delete, not to move to a new name. This page should be deleted. RickK 09:57, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, Ok. Delete the How to heal traumas. But Waking the Tiger should be considered a separate issue as a book review.Pls note that Waking the Tiger is a notable book.--Jondel 10:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without independent verifiability that anyone else cares - David Gerard 19:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WELL I CARE. KEEP--Jondel 06:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Um, it's nice that you care. But the book seems non-notable. DaveTheRed 06:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Amazon sales rank of 1409 and the book seems non- notable?. Have you tried googling it? Maybe it deserves a rewrite? --Jondel 07:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Since there are an awful lot of self-help books out there, I would like to know what sets this book apart from the others in its genre. In other words, is it meaningful or is it just a reiteration of common-sensical catchphrases and buzzwords? If the article can be rewritten to demonstrate that, I'd be happy to keep it. Abstain for now. Radiant_* 08:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
One of the best books on effectively healing traumas, emotional hangups. Gives a very clear basis of how and why we get paralyzed or traumatized. How the 'fight or flight' responce may have been useful in man's primitive days but continues to exist and detrimentally affect our lives today. Pls read the reviews. I personnaly have found it very relevant and practical. I don't sem to have the ability to rewrite.I would appreciate the help.--Jondel 09:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article on notable book. Support sending to cleanup for rewrite though. Jgm 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So if you lose a VfD vote, all you have to do is rename the article, strip off the VfD headers, and get a new chance with new votes? RickK 05:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know anything about the previous vote, I simply think this book is a valid subject for an article and that the current version, though it has problems, is an acceptable starting point. Jgm 13:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • RickK is referring to the VfD of How to Heal Trauma, Waking the Tiger is the name of the book. RickK can't this be treated as a separate issue? Waking the Tiger as a book review? The intent of HTHTs was as the name of the title is , healing traumas. This is a book review now.--Jondel 06:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The same nonsense that was in the first article is in this one. The whole Medusa business. This is almost word-for-word from the first article. Whether or not this is a book review, the same wording applies. RickK 21:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll be trimming down or removing the Medusa section.--Jondel 00:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why can't it just be speedied as re-creation of deleted material? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would love to. RickK 21:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why are you so intent on deleting? Wouldn't this article/book be useful to someone someday? If its because its word-for-word I'll rewrite again(tried already but still poor quality )and post a peer review request.--Jondel 00:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The reason I'm so intent on deletion is because you're trying to make an end run around the VfD process by changing the name and stripping off the VfD header. This article was clearly voted for deletion, and your manipulations are inappropriate. RickK 05:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as recreation of previously vfd'd article.-gadfium 05:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that moving the content to Waking the Tiger (the title it should have been under in the first place) was in fact a course of action that was suggested during the course of the VfD. Was it unwise to move the article during the course of a VfD? Yes, it was. Should it be taken, as RickK suggests, as evidence of bad faith, or should the fact that Jondel was following suggestions being made for cleanup be taken as evidence of good faith? I think the latter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Moving was not the result of the Vfd. Delete was.-gadfium 01:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Then pound a wooden stake into its heart. Edeans 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, seems like a notable book. The article has been heavily modified since it entered VFD, and is no longer a reposting of deleted content. Most of the above votes are also outdated; whoever closes this discussion should take that into account. --SPUI (talk) 15:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • ' Keep the Article It is a seminal book in the field and is the only article I've yet found on the issue of trauma and shock. It does need work and I for one will work on it. PS: I do not agree with all of Dr. Levin's ideas. Mickey Judd

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

List of Drone Metal Bands[edit]

Hard to see this is a notable list; no associated article for the concept; most of the bands on the list are similarly redlinks. Those that do appear don't seem to use the "Drone Metal" description. Alai 09:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I was going to say Delete on the grounds of it being a subgenre of a subgenre. But instead I'll say delete because if the author himself cannot come up with more than five entries it really shouldn't be a seperate list. oh yeah ParkingStones 18:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with that. Delete. Should add subgenre to main genre list as annotation. Radiant_* 19:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete - David Gerard 19:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Poking around here some more, I find there's slightly more related content than meets the eye: there's articles for Drone metal and for at least one more of the bands, they're just not linked correctly. There's also some discussion of drone metal in the Doom Metal article. However, it's still not enough here to justify a separate article, so I'll go with merge and redirect (and the merging part may be pretty vacuous). Alai 20:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ugh, these days every band wants their own genre or subgenre (recurse ad nauseam). Radiant_* 21:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable sub-genre. Megan1967 07:25, 21 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 to keep Kayo Dot and merge and redirect Toby Driver to Kayo Dot. —Korath (Talk) 01:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Toby Driver and Kayo Dot[edit]

Borderline notability; possible vanity. The IP who created this article, 141.154.80.129, created a series of speediable nonsense articles along with these two. /sɪzlæk˺/ 10:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep assuming they meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Merge all the 'nonsense' subpages. Kappa 10:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. amazon.com has some samples of their "music". [7]. Kappa 10:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This vfd should also include Mia Matsumiya. Thue | talk 10:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm friends with a couple guys from Kayo Dot, so I'll recuse myself from voting, but I will say they have released at least one album, and toured extensively, which puts them up there with many other bands included in wikipedia. They have a pretty good following as well. If this article is to be kept Toby and Mia should be redirected to it, with a little merging; I don't think either of them deserve their own articles as of yet, though I have no idea what a tragibots are. -R. fiend 16:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you think Mia has a screwdriver plan for disassembling the world? (It was speedied) Kappa 19:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If she does, it was probably best deleted. I'm pretty sure I met Mia once, but I really know nothing about her. I think a simple redirect for her is best, if Kayo Dot survives this VfD (and obviously deletion if it doesn't). -R. fiend 19:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kayo Dot on R. Fiend's attestation, redirect the band members to it - David Gerard 19:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep band, redirect members. Capitalistroadster 04:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • either Merge and redirect to Kayo Dot or delete them. Unless they've done something substantial I can't see these stubby article expanding much. Megan1967 07:24, 21 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Annanda Thavymony RATH[edit]

The usual sort of vanity bio-stub. Delete because article does not establish notability. jni 11:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Yep, vanity. delete ike9898 13:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Being a student is not grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Smithfarm
  • Delete. Vanity, nn. I still regret there's no policy to support a speedy for these. vlad_mv 15:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a lack of information that establishes notablility. Zzyzx11 17:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 19:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:35, 21 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:46, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

List of dead rappers[edit]

Orphaned, incomplete list. I think our categorization and indexing of people is extensive enough without this. jni 12:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Trivial listcruft. List of murdered rappers would be encyclopedic, but this article's scope is too broad. Why not just put them on List of dead people? Binadot 16:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We already have the List of hip hop musicians, which clearly states which are deceased. Even if it were changed to "murdered," it still seems like a fairly pointless article to me. Definite deletion. Ridethefire3211 11:47 EST, 20 Mar 2005
  • Isn't rap different from hip-hip? The List of hip hop musicians seems to be working fine regardless. weak delete. Mgm|(talk) 17:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, scope is too broad. DaveTheRed
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete this article. CPS 06:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless unnecessary list. Megan1967 07:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Before you consider Megan1967's vote as any kind of input you might note that she votes to delete any article that is related to rap music. I doubt that she has any true insight on the matter at hand. CPS 07:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Attack the argument, not the person. I wholeheartedly agree that this is a pointless unnecessary list, and that it should be deleted. Radiant_* 08:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd like to start a dialogue about this, but it seems unlikely to me that anyone would be open-minded enough for it to go anywhere. Radiant! has also voted for a number of articles related to rap music to be deleted and I don't think I could ever change his mind about this one. Your argument is that this page is "pointless". But the deaths of these rappers were all fairly big events. CPS 08:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • 7 deletes so far to 1 keep. It's a big call to claim everyone who votes against this is "close minded", particularly since the vote has nothing to do with the genre of music or race. Megan1967 09:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Actually, I've kept track of some of your other votes. You voted to delete Lil' Scrappy, Pimp C, God's Son, Me So Horny, Diss Tape, Whody, and Lo' Down (a.k.a. Loco José). Even though I doubt you know anything about these topics, you voted to delete all of them. I am not arguing with the other people voting to delete this, only you. I think it's obvious to anyone who is paying attention that you are biased against articles related to rap music. But since there are so many votes against this page, maybe your vote being discounted won't hurt afterall? CPS 09:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Well I guess your plea is better than simply blanking/removing/censoring other people's votes you dont agree with which you have a previous record of doing btw. Thank goodness you don't run a democracy. P.S. I seriously doubt there is a pro-Libertarian bias on Wikipedia. Megan1967 10:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Actually that's 8 delete's counting Radiant's vote. Megan1967 09:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • CPS, if - as you say - you are arguing with no one else here, only with Megan, I suggest you do it either on her talk page or on your own. Comments of this nature are of no use to other voters and make VfD even larger than it already is. VladMV ٭ talk 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You are welcome to keep track of votes, but you seem to have forgotten the First Law of Statistics (namely, that if you put enough numbers together, eventually some relation will seem to appear that is in fact a random deviation). The point is, neither Megan nor myself are biased against any particular kind of music. Rather, we have some (not necessarily identical) ideas on what is encyclopedic and what isn't. That is POV and subject to vote, and that's exactly what VfD is for. So asking for our votes to be discounted is uncalled for (and equally invalid as the argument that your vote should be discounted because you are biased in favor of this kind of music).
    • Read the Notability and Music Requirements for details on why some artists get deleted even if some people like them. Radiant_* 13:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • If CPS's definition of being "open minded" includes censoring free speech (deleting comments and blanking pages), discriminating on the grounds of political belief (ie. Libertarianism), and the right to vote (deleting votes from VfD) then all power to him. Too bad he hasn't argued anything in favour of actually keeping the article, now there's a thought. Megan1967 22:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Again CPS has been engaging in censorship on this VfD by removing my replies to his unsubstantiated allegations. Megan1967 04:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm dropping the issue now. This article looks headed for a consensus delete so it's pointless arguing any further. The admins have already noted what's going on. Megan1967 01:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but should be annotated, possibly renamed. Notable rappers seem to die alarmingly frequently Kappa 10:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, support renaming. Yes, premature death has become a particular hazard of that particular occupation/social construct and as such this phenomenon is research-worthy and thus the list is useful. Jgm 22:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. ComCat 01:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as "rapper" seems overly restrictive. For example, both Jam Master Jay of Run-DMC and Scott La Rock of Boogie Down Productions were DJs, not rappers, and do not belong on this list. List of hip hop musicians is more inclusive and is already sufficient. - BanyanTree 17:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's the point? --Carnildo 06:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of hip hop musicians Saopaulo1 07:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no point. --Silas Snider (talk) 07:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless list. VladMV ٭ talk 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless useless vanity listcruft. Leanne 02:37, 28 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:49, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Damon Saito Mattinson[edit]

      • Vandalized by User:82.45.6.170, who put a large blinking div with the words "suck my sock" that flooded the VfD page. Possible server bug because it thoroughly messes up VfD.

Allegedly a Japanese painter/small-time actor born "Saito Kagoshima" who moved to the US and changed his name. I have looked, and can find no evidence -- zip zero nada -- that this person exists. No Google hits (Web, News, Groups, or Images -- strange for a painter) and no listings on IMDB, under "Damon Saito Mattinson", "Saito Kagoshima" or his alleged great-great-grandfather "Yamamoto Kagoshima" -- and the external link leads to a freewebs text page with no live links, images, or evidence of the subject's existence. And why do both "Saito Kagoshima" and "Yamamoto Kagoshima" have two Japanese surnames and no given names? Smells like an elaborate hoax by article creator User:Suffice. --Calton | Talk 12:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: Also, if this is deleted, also delete Saito Kagoshima, a redirect page to this article. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete without independent verifiability - David Gerard 19:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, possible hoax. Megan1967 07:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete likely hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: I'm the creator of this article and this certainly isn't a hoax. I created the article because there is nearly no information about Saito on the internet and I don't have the time or money to create my own webpage; Wikipedia is quick and easy. Although I can't find any "proof" on the Internet, you could probably find Saito if you look in any respectable art-history book (usually under his American name, unless the book is focusing on Japanese painters). I also managed to obtain one of Saito's (less valuable) paintings when I was younger, and this is what inspired my love for him and his art -- Saito arguably impacted worldwide art style; you can't find many similar styles in today's art (long, abstract shadows coupled with slightly varied dark colours; in particular a very dark crimson and black). I ask that you please reconsider your votes, until at least asking an art scholar or some other knowledgeable person; or at least a trip to your local library. Thank you, Suffice 23:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Prove it. You haven't provided a single verifiable source, just a bunch of handwaving. There is nearly no information about Saito on the Internet? There's absolutely NONE, unbelievable for someone who "arguably impacted worldwide art style". No notices of gallery shows or auctions, no reviews, no obits, no biographies, no essays on his style, no examples of his work, no mention on IMDB, nothing. And, as I confirmed with a Japanese co-worker just now, neither his name or that of his alleged father make sense, since they're both made up of two surnames.
    • Provide an external source. Give me a book title (study or collection, preferably with an ISBN), magazine reference, gallery or museum displaying his work, art scholar who studies his work, title of a movie he appeared in, SOMETHING. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Michael Snow 21:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't show up in any of the reference books I've checked. -- Solipsist 10:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: The creator of this article, User:Suffice, has copied it to his User Page. Since it seems to be an outright hoax, that copy should also be deleted. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 29 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Glunk[edit]

Unreferenced, looks like an invented word. Kappa 12:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • This definition is rubbish, of course. It has already been added to BJAODN by Bonalaw. The word in actual fact appears to be onomatopoetic, mainly used for the sound of fluid being poured (c.f. "glugg"). Of course, a dictionary entry saying this belongs in Wiktionary, if anywhere. Wiktionary could create a better entry from scratch, and wouldn't want any of this article. Similarly, although the word is a family name there's no call for a name disambiguation page since we actually have no articles for people who are commonly known as Glunk. Delete. Uncle G 16:20, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 19:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy—patent nonsense. —Caesura 21:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. I could swear I saw this go by on VfD once before. --Carnildo 04:23, 22 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Donkey vote[edit]

This was tagged for a speedy but should not be deleted because "donkey votes" are an importance measure of protest or apathy. Voting is compulsory in Australia. Keep Kappa 13:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or move to Wiktionary. Edited the article using Kappa's comment, for increased clarity, and made it a stub. --Smithfarm
  • This is discussing the concept, not the word, and as such is inappropriate for the dictionary. There's a full discussion of this concept, the historical oddities that it has caused, and the consequent changes to the system already at Australian electoral system. Redirect. Uncle G 15:16, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Point taken. Please note that Kappa and I have expanded the article somewhat, but I for one did not realize the material is already covered in the Australian electoral system article. Is there a way to redirect to the particular section of that article that discusses Donkey vote, instead of just to the article itself? If a user is looking for Donkey Vote, he wants an explanation of that, not a general tome on the entire electoral system. --Smithfarm
  • Keep Compulsory votes? How do they do it? Grue 18:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important concept in Australian electoral politics. Capitalistroadster 19:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, they round up all non-voters with cattleprods. <grin> seriously though, Merge as Smithfarm suggests, and the redirect can be written as [[Australian elections#Donkeys]] or thereabouts. Radiant_* 19:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Does that work? Kappa 20:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect, important in Australian politics - David Gerard 19:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Observation: It would be easier to keep it than to merge it. First, I think the current stub has potential to be expanded by people like Kappa who have a clue. Second, the Australian electoral system article doesn't have a Donkey Vote section. Third, even the current stub has info that is not duplicated in the big article. The sole mention of 'donkey vote' in the big article could be made into a link to Donkey vote. --Smithfarm
  • I'd prefer a separate article rather than a merge, simply because it can be written about in more detail. Keep Lacrimosus 00:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. I have added to this discussing its impact on the House of Representatives, Senate and in Hare-Clark explaining the different variations of the phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 06:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep for being a notable effect in Australian elections, and politics. --Takver 05:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems both notable and interesting. Jonathunder 03:54, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Suan Zhu[edit]

Delete Vanity, non-notable. Nice drawing though. Dsmdgold 13:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Same reasons. Incidentally, the page seems to have been blanked. --Smithfarm
  • I suggest a look at Special:Contributions/Suansworks and http://www.suansworks.com/. We appear to have an autobiographer on our hands. Uncle G 16:57, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion. (Just in case my vote intention wasn't obvious from my earlier comment...) android↔talk 17:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam - David Gerard 19:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity, promo. Megan1967 09:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I object, I am publishing it soon, I came here to claim priority on the idea or whatsoever related to it, if it can not be put on wikipedia at this, I shall move it up to my personal user page in here, anyways, I will contribute other articles in here, good to know everyone! By the way, I created my personal page on wikipedia by mistake, I am new to here, don't know the rules, sorry about it!-Suansworks
  • Delete, promocruft. ComCat 01:42, 22 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Assassins (society)[edit]

Unverifiable secret society. Delete. jni 13:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Its existence is verifiable (I've added a couple of external links), but it's just one of a number of very similar Oxford drinking/dining societies, whose members indulge in rather childish shenanigans. the content of the article is mostly tosh, and it's difficult to say what might replace it, beyond the fact that it exists, and perhaps a list of people who are said to have belonged to it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ha ha ha. Delete - David Gerard 20:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Hashshashin. --Carnildo 04:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd disagree with the redirect. The Hashshashin weren't really a society (and I can't imagine anyone looking for them using this search term), and the point is that this society does exist in Oxford, has been around for a while, but is not very interesting. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. insertcruft here. Chris 22:55, 23 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Conchado[edit]

Supposedly "a race of elusive beasts in mythology". Unreferenced, I couldn't find any google results for this meaning. Kappa 13:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a Spanish word for conching (es:conchado). It's also a Spanish word for the brown plumage on Leonese roosters, used to make lures in fly fishing ([8]). It's also a family name, leading me to believe that this original article was an attack page. Uncle G 15:50, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable rubbish - David Gerard 20:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 09:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable tosh. -- Picapica 10:25, 26 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

sesquipedalianist[edit]

I concur with what is written at Talk:sesquipedalianist. Uncle G 15:01, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

  • Delete or transwiki to wiktionary. Dicdef. -R. fiend 16:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 20:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Desubstantiate this unmeritorious hyperpolysyllabic lexicographicism. (And this is not just floccinaucinihilipilification on my part). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Discombobulated and flummoxed by pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis while standing at Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch station reciting supercalifragilisticexpialidocious... err just delete. Megan1967 09:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Kevin Rector 17:47, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thaloc ivy[edit]

Delete: appears to be total nonsense. I could find, in my brief web search, no reference to either "Thaloc ivy" or "Tlaloc ivy". In any case, Hedera helix is common ivy, which does not have needle-shaped leaves, and is not native to North America. Thaloc ivy may be real, but if so, this article doesn't say anything about it. --Stemonitis 15:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vandalism. Ivy doesn't have needle-like leaves and Thaloc and Tlaloc have nothing to do with ivy. For a discussion of ivy types, see http://www.susansgardenpatch.com/indoor7.htm. This image from that page shows different shapes of ivy leaves, all of which are star or shield shaped, not needle. According to this botany page, "cat's whiskers" is Orthosiphon aristatus, not Hedera Helix, and is native to Java, not North America. --Smithfarm
  • Delete. Vandalism. No such thing exists. - MPF 00:22, 22 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 speedy delete as deleted article creation:

  • 19:42, 20 Mar 2005 Charles Matthews deleted Geraint brython edwards (vanity-nonsense (re-created))
  • 11:18, 18 Mar 2005 Charles Matthews deleted Geraint brython edwards (nonsense)
  • 13:49, 24 Feb 2005 Jni deleted Geraint Brython Edwards (Deleted per vfd.)

--Deathphoenix 15:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geraint brython edwards[edit]

Patent uncpaitalised vanity Rich Farmbrough 16:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hasn't done anything important has barely done anything at all. Dbiv 17:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not see anything that this person has done notable. Zzyzx11 17:46, 20 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. —Korath (Talk) 02:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

World War IV[edit]

Term coined by a journalist, claiming World War III to be the Cold War (which, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been called). Google search throws up games, and references to numerous conflicts (some about the "war on terror", some about Iraq, some about a possible conflict in the Middle East, a couple about the Ukraine). Usage in general seems not to be correct, since World War III hasn't actually happened yet. Did I mention the POV aspect? Chris 16:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's silly, but it is a persistent enough of a meme in the media that it merits its own Wiki article. It may have been coined by former CIA Director James Woolsey. He has certainly used the term. --AStanhope 17:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google search for "World War IV" + terrorism gives 29,300 hits. Article should mention that this is not a widely accepted term. Be prepared for articles on World War V and World War VI DaveTheRed 17:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point, DaveTheRed. The article should indeed point out that World War III didn't happen and that World War IV isn't a widely accepted term. One can certainly report these facts while maintaining overall NPOV. --AStanhope 17:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
DaveTheRed, I'd suspect there's a lot of false-positives in that search. Chris 17:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd bet there are some false positives in that search, but I'd also wager that enough are solid hits to indicate that the term is legit. DaveTheRed 06:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — wartime propaganda, so it has some historical relevance. — RJH 17:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Another good point. --AStanhope 17:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wouldn't call it propaganda, just a bit of bad phraseology, but it's notable enough nonetheless. android↔talk 17:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I don't think the war on terrorism is the only use of the term. I think Einstein's quote about World War IV being fought with sticks and stones deserves mention in there somewhere. Also, I bet there's been a World War IV in some futuristic sci-fi fiction that maybe could be mentioned, though nothing comes to mind right now. -R. fiend 18:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content merits an article (throws a rock at Chriscf and claim it WW4, apologizing to Albert Elinstein) SYSS Mouse 19:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to something like Future world wars and add redirects from World War V, VI and maybe VII. (Can we do wildcard titles?) Radiant_* 19:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, real term, don't rename - David Gerard 20:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Colin Angus Mackay 23:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have added the Einstein quote. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to War on terrorism. Keep. Cohen was not the first to identify the Cold War as World War III; Norman Friedman did the same in his book The Fifty Year War. Gazpacho 08:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful since the term is also used quite a lot in fiction (perhaps a section on fictional World War IVs is needed). Also worth keeping based upon the Einstein quote. Incidentally the first official use of World War III that I ever heard was from King Hussein of Jordan who used the term in a press conference soon after the start of the 1991 Gulf War, to describe that conflict. 23skidoo 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term has been used enough that it merits its own article in Wikipedia. InFairness 22:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 06:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why was this even considered for VFD? It's legitimate and encyclopedic. Even if POV exists, that isn't grounds for deletion merely revision. Keep. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:29, 24 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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

  • 17:44, 20 Mar 2005 Charles Matthews deleted John halma (just nonsense ...)

--Deathphoenix 15:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John halma[edit]

Joke/vanity/somethinglikethat. CDC (talk) 17:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Attack page. android↔talk 17:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Margarita Gargova[edit]

She sounds like a wonderful woman, but I can't see how she's notable; a clerk and struggling screenwriter who finally managed to get one piece of work published in a magazine. CDC (talk) 17:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The world's oldest debutante? Not so sure about that. Anyway, delete. Clearly not notable. Family vanity perhaps? This ain't the obits. -R. fiend 18:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable and who cares? - David Gerard 20:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having one screenplay published isn't notable enough. Cnwb 02:04, 21 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 04:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THE dOG POUND[edit]

Nonsense, potentially speedy delete material about a non-notable band. CDC (talk) 17:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this is found not to be a hoax, and I seriously doubt it won't be, the band doesn't meet the guidelines for musician notability, anyway. android↔talk 17:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This was speedy deleted by Neutrality yesterday, and should get the same treatment today. Delete. JeremyA 18:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No allmusic.com entry. Three unrelated hits for a google search of "dog pound" + derf. Gamaliel 21:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Needs to go now. Deb 22:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn bandcruft. ComCat 01:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been speedied again. No need to waste our time on these. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 22 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 speedy delete.

  • 17:56, 20 Mar 2005 MacGyverMagic deleted Katie Bostdorff (attack page)

--Deathphoenix 15:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Katie Bostdorff[edit]

Smells like personal attack to me: the name googles to 14 hits [9], some of which seem to refer to a tennis player. I vote Delete, nn, even if it could be verified. vlad_mv 17:36, 20 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wang Gang[edit]

Some Chinese university student. Article does not explain why he is notable. jni 18:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Only notability I can see is that he was a hard-working student. That would put him in a minority among university students in Britain .. but not in China, I think. Delete. Dbiv 18:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete:personal promotion page . --Ragib 18:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. You know, I was going to join the wang gang once, but unfortunately my wang didn't measure up. So sad. -R. fiend 18:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 20:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this as a typical vanity. vlad_mv 20:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 02:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • del, nn Yuckfoo 06:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. 162.105.68.172 13:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but that's quite a name you've got there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Interesting name though...Fawcett5 22:53, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Papoose[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity? Attack? This speaks for itself. Delete. Ridethefire3211 18:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's probably not an attack, unless you mean an attack of parental dotage, which it almost certainly was. On the bright side, this has inspired me to create Wiktionary:papoose. Delete. Uncle G 18:50, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

sausome[edit]

This is an adjective and a surname. As an adjective it's a protologism, which Wiktionary doesn't take articles on. (And Urban Dictionary already has it.) As a surname, it is not worthy of note. Uncle G 18:29, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

  • Delete, protologism. Kappa 18:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 20:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur. Fawcett5 22:54, 25 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 04:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JFK Middle School[edit]

Extreme school vanity. Establishes no notability and has no useful information. Delete. Ridethefire3211 18:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sub-sub-sub-stub with no potential to become encyclopedic. Gamaliel 18:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There must be hundreds of JFK middle schools. Placing it in Northampton is misleading. Delete. Dpv 18:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Dpv. In fact, wasn't the middle school in The Wonder Years called JFK Middle School, and didn't the kid in the show make some comment about how it was one of several zillion schools making that name change that year? -R. fiend 18:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy No significant content or context? Rich Farmbrough 19:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dpv, misleading content. Speedy. Mgm|(talk) 19:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Content was: 'This is a middle school in Northampton, MA.' Neutralitytalk 19:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 United States. —Korath (Talk) 02:07, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

U.s.[edit]

Useless attempted redirect to United States. --Neigel von Teighen 18:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as proper redirect to United States (I'm not sure why that's such a bad idea, but I expect that I'll be told...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep proper redirect. It won't be linked to, but searches for "u.s." will be common enough. —Korath (Talk) 19:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects go on WP:RFD by the way. This seems useful enough, so keep. Radiant_* 19:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously useful or someone wouldn't have created it - David Gerard 19:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly harmless; potentially useful. Wincoote 10:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects don't go on VfD. If you genuinely want to discuss this redirect's merits or lack thereof, please renominate it at WP:RFD (Redirects for deletion); VfD isn't the place for it. Bearcat 00:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, potentially useful redirect. ComCat 01:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The wiki should be made less case sensitive in my opinion. Keep until this is fixed.Fawcett5 22:55, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 19:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Saleel[edit]

More vanity. Is it really that hard to understand that personal Wikipedia articles aren't allowed? No notability; yes, he seems to run a website, but who doesn't these days? Delete. Ridethefire3211 19:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Err... I don't.Irishpunktom\talk 11:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mistitled vanity. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 19:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
The article has improved since I voted and now it's about the website it's no longer mistitled. I retract my vote and abstain. Mgm|(talk) 18:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 20:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No sign of notability, probable vanity. Alai 20:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. --Ragib 20:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nn. vlad_mv 22:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable person. His projects on the web have been influential in the lives of huge numbers of people (and he didn't create the entry himself) HussaynKhariq 10:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Articles don't have to be written by the subject themselves to be vanity. If you want to change people's mind about this article, please add references to it and make sure both first and last name are used in the title according to Wikipedia's naming conventions. Mgm|(talk) 10:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Must Keep, Most notable personality. Maybe not by you but definately amongst the thousands of web surfers for his excellent project management, resource management and his community outreach efforts. We need more Saleels!!! Haqq 12:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User's first edit. --Carnildo 04:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep His projects really have affected the lives of many and he is well known in various circles. And it's only 2 lines anyway. --Ehguy 03:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User's first edit. --Carnildo 04:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep a promising young doctor who has saved many lives and continues to do humanitarian work at home and abroad.-smrtengineer
    • Note: user's second edit, the first was to this talk page. DaveTheRed 18:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep A humble and nice person, doing great work for soceity.
  • Deserves a keep.-MangoIceCream
    • Note: User's first edit. DaveTheRed 18:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Saleels website Sunniforum.com is one of the largest growing websites on the web for Islam with a wide range of support from Islamic scholars. Soon, it will probably be the largest Forum on the web! This is a definite keep. No vanity since the author did not put this up on his own. - Salman
    • Note: user's first edit. DaveTheRed 18:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT! This guy has done some excellent work for the all of us. Sad that people can't see what effort he puts into all his work. A true legend that all gradfathers will undoubtly talk about to their gradnchildren. Keep this Wiki... nice work Saleel!
  • Delete - obvious vanity Trampled 11:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Google mostly reports blog and chat entries, little else. GorristerGorrister 11:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep i think we should definitely keep this link. i have vastly improved my knowledge of the wonderfully varied world of Islam and Muslim peoples after reading some excellent thought-provoking material on his websites. We need to encourage more of this type of stuff from these youngsters at a time when many are being driven into despair and hatred of our culture through the actions of our very own war-mongering politicians. His articles are a breath of fresh air. i also thoroughly recommend everyone to sample some of the audio links on his site. the 'Nasheeds' songs he has contained therein are certainly unique and really put one's body under strain when trying to move to them. If this is traditional Islamic culture then i want more of this! Well done to Wikipedia for allowing entries like this to exist. They have certainly changed my life for the better and i will forever be indebted to Mr. Saleel for my improved understanding and music collection!--Aloo Paratha 11:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Another first time editor. I'm seeing a pattern ;) Trampled 11:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. Sockpuppets, begone! DaveTheRed 18:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Lucky 6.9 smells socks. To Lucky 6.9, socks and vanity equal delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - He's done a lot, His Websites are significantly large and important. They should be expanded to include more detailed information on his sites. Like the Segregation of "Bros" and "Sis'", the volumes of nasheeds and poetry!, The open dialogue between Zionists, Jews, Christians and Muslims.. Oh, yeah ... This is Not my first Edit! --Irishpunktom\talk 11:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I dislike your personal attack Jayjg. Apart from being uncalled for it is a blatent lie. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:51, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't referring to you Tom, but rather to the many "first edit" voters here. I'm one of quite a few editors here who have noticed the sockpuppets; were they all also "personally attacking" you and "blatantly lying"? Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • They all posted before me, whereas you posted after me. If you are going to attack someone the least even you could do is name them. How exactly do you know these are sockpuppets and not IP editors who regged just to save Saleel --Irishpunktom\talk 22:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
          • I haven't attacked anyone, yes they all posted before you, and what exactly is your point? As for whether or not they are sockpuppets, or they simply happened to be anonymous Wikipedia editors who all happened upon the article at the same time, and all happened to decide to register for the very first time so that they could vote, Occam's Razor provides the answer. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • My "point" is that,in reponse your query "were they all also "personally attacking" you and "blatantly lying"? ", they were not making a personal attack on me - I hadn't even posted here, or made the changes to the article yet - wheras you were (Yet again). It's also worth noting that this is yet another Muslim-Based article that you wish to remove.. another 'trend' apparent. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
              • One "trend" I see here is that only you and a bunch of sockpuppets want to keep this article, and everyone else voting sees that it is not notable. The second "trend" I see is that you have looked at my contributions, and then deliberately voted the opposite way I voted on all recent VfDs (e.g. [10]), along with reverting my recent edits or reversions (e.g. [11]). The final "trend" I see is for you to support vanity articles relating to Muslims, making all sorts of claims about notability which you refuse to back up with evidence; for example, [12]
  • Delete. Spam and vanity supported by probable sockpuppets --Neigel von Teighen 22:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sockpuuppets?--Eliezer 00:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If only this chap could persuade all these sock puppets to post regularly on his website! It's like a ghost town. Few of the posts I looked at had any comments at all. None of the comments I saw were recent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity piece and non-notable; and as Tony says, the website itself doesn't seem to be used much. SlimVirgin 17:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above non-socks. Davenbelle 17:52, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable and vanity. Clearly not an international authority. Tiller1 21:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My personal three-sockpuppet limit has been reached. Any article which can't stand on its own merits but relies on sockpuppet votes to keep it going doesn't deserve keeping. RickK 21:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity cubed. With sockpuppets. Edeans 04:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ignore the sockpuppets, vanity advertisement Fawcett5 22:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Saleel says DELETE. This is Saleel. This page is useless and serves no purpose. There is no need for it and it is not useful as an addition to Wikipedia. Please DELETE it. Saleel
  • Comment - There are no sockpuppets AFAIK. I made an appeal on Sunniforum for people to vote to keep the article (with the idea that many people on sunniforum were long time wikipedia users as well) because I truly believe that Saleel is a notable person. Instead of the vetern wikipedians voting as I expected, lots of people decided to register and make their first edit on the vote page. At the most there may be one sockpuppet, otherwise the rest of them are all different members of Sunniforum. HussaynKhariq 23:55, 26 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. SimonP 20:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was - no consensus Radiant_* 08:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Sage School[edit]

One line substub for a non-notable school. The full text of the article is: "The Sage School is an independent school for academicaly gifted students started in the early 1990s. It is located in Foxboro, Massachusetts." JeremyA 19:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider has made an attempt at vote-swinging for this nomination.
    • (Unsigned comment by User:Radiant!)
    • Although IMHO this is true, and although IMHO it is bad conduct on his part, and although treating VfD in this way (as a power struggle among factions) is IMHO bad for Wikipedia, nevertheless I do not think it should be taken into account by the sysop acting on this VfD. I think every vote by a real user should be counted. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think that attempts at organization regaurding votes of interest are inherently "bad conduct". --L33tminion | (talk) 00:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's why I said it was my opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a public institution. How is that not notable?--Gene_poole 23:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep public institutions. (well quite a lot of them)Kappa 23:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it isn't public... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a usage quibble which shows little understanding of usage. Wincoote 10:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No, actually it's a counterargument to Kappa's vote. Radiant_* 13:21, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Gene_poole and Kappa have judged that this particular school should be kept. They choose to articulate a general principle for this judgement. I'm noting that their stated principle—that in their opinion, any "public institution" is encyclopedic—in fact does not apply to this school. They should consider rephrasing their criterion; for example, they could say "In my opinion, all private schools are encyclopedic." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I think you're misinterpreting the use of the term "public". All schools are public institutions, irrespective of whether they are government owned or privately owned, in the same manner all churches, transport companies, telecommunications providers and similar groups are public institutions, because they all service the general community or subsets thereof.--Gene_poole 01:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Well, The Sage School does not service "the general community" [13] but you have a point, and my remark was "a quibble," and this whole subdiscussion is off-topic, and I started it, and I apologize. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good evidence of notability presented prior to expiration of VfD. An online search of the Boston Globe from 1980 to the present turns up only a single hit, a September 4, 1999 real-estate-section profile of Foxboro. The article proper does not actually mention the Sage School. The school is only touched in a "Foxborough at a glance" sidebar, where it is simply listed: "Public schools: one high school, one middle school, and three elementary schools. Other schools: Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical School, private charter school, Sage School." The Boston Herald mentions it twice: in an obituary, and in an article on the Hearld's Black History Month writing and drawing contest in which a Sage School student was a runner-up in the 6th-8th grade division. On this evidence I say that the Sage School does not even have regional notability in the Boston area. I live within fifteen minutes of Foxboro and have never heard of this school. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So now you have heard of it and you want to kick Wikipedia for telling you something you didn't want to know. Better get rid of all these school articles before you accidentally learn something else. What does Wikipedia think it is? A source of information or something? --Zero 02:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Usual rules apply. Unless there is something which sets this school aside from the run-of-the-mill schools, it's got to go. Chris 03:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a pretty ho-hum K-8 school. Nothing notable. DaveTheRed 06:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Dpsmith. Radiant_* 08:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Allow for growth. Wincoote 09:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Started in the early 90s? What, the date is lost in the mists of time? Delete a school that doesn't even have regional notability. --Calton | Talk 12:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Dpbsmith. vlad_mv 12:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Dpbsmith. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Lacrimosus 01:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 06:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new rewrite. Lookin' good! - Lucky 6.9 07:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an OK stub, apparently paraphrased from the school's website (which is OK). But it's still about a school that is not even notable enough to have received any real mention in the two major regional newspapers (the Boston Globe and Boston Herald) that cover Foxboro. No change in my vote.Dpbsmith (talk) 11:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Don't see a problem here. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 23:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 04:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for continuous organic growth and improvement. --GRider\talk 18:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing notable here. Gamaliel 21:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 1) deleting for being a substub is invalid. 2) deleting for "non-notable" is also invalid. That it has already improved since its listing shows there is potential for more growth.  ALKIVAR™ 21:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Others have noted why. --Dittaeva 21:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Substubness is not a deletion reason. Notability is not a deletion reason - verifiability is, if you bother to look at the Wikipedia:deletion policy. There is no on-policy reason to delete this - David Gerard 22:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The article isn't a substub any more... but I have to ask, how can "very short articles with little or no context" be a valid criterion for speedy deletion, yet not a valid criterion for deletion? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability is an established VfD criteria by convention if nothing else. Thryduulf 22:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • merge or delete: If its in an urban area, a catchment of that size is probably moderately notable, if its rural its not notable at all - my school had a ~15mile catchment radius in the much more densley populated United Kingdom, and it doesn't have an article. If its noteworth on the level of the article about the community then merge there, if not just a plain delete will suffice. Thryduulf 22:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 23:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, spammer-supported. —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Needs expansion, though. --Zero 02:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Contains interesting information - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 02:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment. Private institutions aren't on the same level as high schools, IMHO. --Andylkl (talk) 04:19, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Half keep. Relatively new school, but keep none the less. —RaD Man (talk) 08:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Radiant_* 08:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, WINP. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. If the existence of the school is not disputed, then there is no reason that this is not a valid article topic. Notability is subjective, but schools with more than a few students should automatically pass the test. Wiki is not paper. Someone please wake me up when there is finally a policy vote about keeping school articles. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Would someone please wake me up when we finally have a policy against cut-and-paste votes like the one above. Thryduulf 00:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Something can be a perfectly true fact, yet not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article demonstrates sufficient notability. Samaritan 20:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain sufficient notability—as I see it, the article demonstrates that this is a school, not unlike the thousands of other schools that exist in pretty much every town and city around the world. Why would anyone outside of Foxboro, MA be interested in this particular school. JeremyA 03:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The main thing is that it serves exclusively a special learning needs population. It's expandible well beyond directory information to discuss the educational philosophy, practices, etc. it uses with its gifted students; parents, students, educators and interested laypeople could survey and compare it with other schools for the gifted, which range from freeform to uniformed. It definitely helps significance that it draws students from across the Boston MA-Providence RI megapolis, and it helps just barely, on top of that, that it's a private school. Samaritan 05:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School vanity. Topic not encyclopedic as subject is not notable. Jonathunder 22:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks notable to me. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Another christian school Saopaulo1 06:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • All schools and other public institutions and facilities such as churches, railway stations, post offices, shopping malls, roads and bridges are notable, without exception. They all have a history that is worth documenting, and that history is always important to someone - even if it's not important to you. This is an encyclopedia people! Keep. --Centauri 07:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If your rationale for your opinion is that "this is an encyclopedia," then why is it that other things that are called "encyclopedias" do not include such material? I think your rationale is that you feel that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopedia within the accepted understanding of that word, but something different. There is a case to be made for that and people make it from time to time, but it is not current policy. By your reasoning, why do we delete articles about real human beings, since you can make a much stronger case for any human being having a history worth documenting that is important to somebody? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since you cite bridges, I would be interested in your opinion on the Olchfa footbridge article. Thryduulf 13:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr 12:54, 29 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 - kept - SimonP 20:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Barriss Offee[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article, but rather a narrative about a Star Wars character. Listed as needing a rewrite since 12th March. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 19:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Mike Rosoft. Edeans 04:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has only had the {{vfd}} notice since 16:09, Mar 24, 2005. —Korath (Talk) 02:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have done some extensive formatting and rewriting, including the addition of the Sw Character Template. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - much imporved - SimonP 20:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 20:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan and Paul Jessup[edit]

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 19:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure they showed great acting ability at such an early age - er, not. Delete. Dbiv 22:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable child actors. DaveTheRed 06:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 09:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • They only did a TV show that ran for one season (91-92). Non-notable, delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable --Angr 11:00, 21 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 - should be merged - SimonP 20:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Abdul Karim Khadr[edit]

Merge and redirect to Ahmed Said Khadr or (preferably) Khadr family. His only notability is through his father Ahmed Said Khadr and his brother Abdurahman Khadr; he has no links in the main namespace except for the article on his father. Neutralitytalk 20:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • retain. -- Geo Swan 22:55, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
The article on Abdul Karin Khadr should contain further information on these topics:
  • Will he remain in the custody of family members until he is an adult?
  • His older brother has been denied a passport, on royal perogative. Will Karim Khadr also be denied a passport?
  • What kind of support will the Canadian government end up providing for his physical therapy, remedial education?
  • Why did 14 year old Omar Khadr end up in Guantanamo, while 11 year old Karim didn't?
  • Question: How many Ahmed Khadrs are in this family? Becuase of the comments above, it seems like there are two people with the same name in this family. Antonio Da Boss of Da Loss of Mind Martin"
The Khadr children are Zaynab, the eldest daughter, Abdullah, the eldest son, Abdurahman Khadr, the "black sheep" who likes video games, and co-operated with the CIA, Abdurahman is also known as "Abdul Rahman", Omar Khadr, the child soldier, wounded in a firefight on July 27th 2002, currently in custody in Guantanamo Bay, and Abdul Karim, crippled in the firefight where his father was killed in October 2003, when he was 11 years old. There is a second daughter who is also just a minor. Abdullah was believed to have been a suicide bomber, until he surfaced for an interview for the documentary "Son of al Queda". He is rumoured to have been captured last fall, and held in one of the clandestine, CIA interrogation centers. -- Geo Swan 22:55, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Redirect whoknew?
  • Redirect --Spinboy 23:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Megan1967 09:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strange article. Redirect as relative of notable (?) person. Radiant_* 13:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. A single article on the family makes the most sense to me; they're notable as a group more than as separate individuals. Bearcat 19:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I concur. Merge/redirect. Samaritan 20:06, 27 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 - should be merged - SimonP 20:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme points of Algeria[edit]

Assuming that the information here is correct, it should be merged into Algeria and this page deleted. -- SGBailey 20:26, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

  • Extreme merge. Radiant_* 21:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Please see here, here, and here (#11) for why not to "merge and delete". —Korath (Talk) 22:14, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep and please also read the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy about minor branches of subjects. Kappa 01:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I said it on Talk:Extreme points of Italy (which I haven't had the time to go back to), and I'll say it here. These "extreme points of" articles are articles about the geography of the particular country/continent, and belong in the "Geography of" articles along with all of the other geographical data. There's nothing special about "extreme point" geographical data that makes them any different to, say, elevation extremes, land boundaries, mean temperatures, or area, all of which are geographical data that are in the geographical article, Geography of Algeria. It's only in rare cases that "Geography of" articles have themselves grown big enough for their sections to spawn their own break-out articles (e.g. Economic geography of the United Kingdom broken out from the economics section of Geography of the United Kingdom, just as that was broken out of the geography section of United Kingdom). This is not the case for Geography of Algeria, nor is it the cases for Geography of Italy, Geography of Madagascar, and all of the other "Geography of" articles that are just gasping for the sorts of data that are instead being added to a completely separate parallel set of articles. Merge the whole series to the proper articles. Uncle G 01:30, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • Keep, we seem to have these pages for many countries. - SimonP 01:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and pretty much all of the [[Extreme points of <country>]] articles are redundant with [[Geography of <country>]]. Radiant_* 08:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Someone dropped a gum wrapper on my neighbor's walk. I guessI better drop one on my own walk, too. For consistency. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong merge with Geography of Algeria. Binadot 02:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with geography of Algeria. Neutralitytalk 06:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Geography of Algeria. Megan1967 09:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and link from Geography of Algeria, no compelling reason to merge. Makes more sense to keep a series of articles on extreme points by country, rather than just for the odd few nations with larger geography of... articles. Warofdreams 11:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep I get it - individual pages for the extreme points of Portugal or Britain is ok, but for Algeria it's not? This is an issue of parity - merge every extreme points page into Geo. or leave them. Sdrawkcab 13:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

    • A wise person suggested "understanding the inconsistent nature of Wikipedia and accepting it as a desirable thing inherent in the processes and values of the project." That's from WP:POINT, which I'm only citing because I what it says about consistency and the Wiki-process. This article, nomination, and discussion are not disruptive. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Geography of Algeria. There shouldn't be individual pages for the extreme points of any country, it's a trivial piece of straightforward geography that belongs with the rest of the information about that country. Look at what other encyclopedias do. You look up the information on Algeria under A-for-Algeria, you don't need to go taking down volume E for extreme points or P for population or S for surface area. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:38, 24 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

Ross Richards[edit]

More vanitycruft. With luck this article will be out of here at the tender age of a month. Delete. vlad_mv 21:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Or five days, if not sooner. Delete this nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 23:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have been speedied. Binadot 02:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 09:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity article, no useful info. — JIP | Talk 10:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wasn't he an obscure member of the Fantastic Four? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity,unnotable etc Tjc 14:36, 22 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 - deleted - SimonP 20:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Madhu[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Delete. ugen64 21:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy, attack page. Kappa 21:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. —Caesura 22:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: --Ragib 01:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, get rid of it, they deleted the tag already. -Deadcorpse 04:12, Mar 21, 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.

  • 22:35, 20 Mar 2005 RickK deleted Operation Ka-Go (no content)

Deathphoenix 15:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Operation Ka-Go[edit]

Speedy delete. No information, definition...nothing. Delete ASAP. Ridethefire3211 22:20, 20 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 - deleted - SimonP 20:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Old laws[edit]

Transwiki to Wikisource. RickK 22:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this nonsense. Edeans 04:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only transwiki if notability is established by the author. - Marcika 04:53, 25 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 - deleted - SimonP 20:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sea sock[edit]

This article is tagged with "move to wiktionary". If it is moved to wiktionary, it should not be deleted from wikipedia. Apart from describing a real thing, it has potential for expansion to discuss materials, fitting, usage in different types of canoe, and how it affects the one's chances of escape if the canoe rolls. Kappa 23:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • P.S. Could also be merged with "kayak" rather than deleted. Kappa 23:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Kappa's suggestion. Binadot 02:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to kayak. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Which is this topic of more relevance to, canoe or kayak or is it of relevance to both topics? If it is both, there may be a case for keeping the article separate and linking to both. I will bow to the advice of those who know about this subject than I do. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Send to wiktionary, also merge to Kayak. Fawcett5 14:00, 21 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

Adaptive Portugal[edit]

Advertising. RickK 23:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Article has been changed to not mach the website. Avoiding deletion. The company is part of the top 10 innovation corparations in Portugal. This by anon 62.48.194.151. VladMV ٭ talk 20:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete copyvio from official website, see here. Mgm|(talk) 10:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. I couldn't verify the claim that this company is amogst the "top 10 innovation corporations" in Portugal. By the way, it is located on the Madeira Islands. VladMV ٭ talk 20:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an Ad. Not notable company in Portugal. The Madeira Tecnopolo (technology centre of Madeira Island) is notable in Portugal, but that company no. I'm from the Software area in Portugal and I dont know that company. -Pedro 13:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:39, 26 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_March_20&oldid=1081092608"