Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED (vandalism). jni 09:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consultative Group on Indonesia

[edit]

Spam Dub4u 21:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Page blanked already. Remove VfD notice and treat as if it's been deleted. Speedy if necessary; I'm not quite sure of the protocol there. --Idont Havaname 00:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, Dub4u blanked the page when the VfD tag was added (a mistake). The original contents were To be informed on housewifes picture the housewifes picture! [URL deleted to avoid triggering spam filter] which, in context of the article's title and "what links here", I am speedy-deleting as vandalism. I do think that a serious article on this group could be encyclopedic. For some reason, this article is a very frequent target for this same kind of vandalism. Rossami (talk) 00:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious vandalism. Megan1967 09:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is one of the pages attacked by the Russian spambot, and has been speedied several times and recreated by the bot. See Category:Protected against spambots for a description of the bot. -- Curps 15:41, 12 Feb 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 N/A (vandalism issue, several vandalbot revisions speedy deleted) jni 09:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent additions 20

[edit]

Spam Dub4u 21:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Nomination vandalized by anonymous user:83.25.94.242. Delete. Rossami (talk) 00:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article on "housewife pictures" is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nomination was again vandalized - this time, by anonymous user:201.2.252.89. Discussion restored. Rossami (talk) 15:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Carrp | Talk 14:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is one of the pages attacked by the Russian spambot, and has been speedied several times and recreated by the bot. See Category:Protected against spambots for a description of the bot. -- Curps 15:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Note this page is currently unused, but will eventually be used (see Wikipedia:Recent additions 19, Wikipedia:Recent additions 18, etc.), so this VfD should not entail an automatic re-delete when the page is created with legitimate content in the future. -- Curps 15:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 06:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Counties of Lebanon

[edit]

Delete, for two reasons: first, County is a very unsuitable name for the districts of Lebanon, since this country doesn't have any counts. Second, another page Districts of Lebanon have the same information (compare it) and have a more suitable name for the political division of Lebanon. 500LL 21:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The United States doesn't have counts either, yet every state except Alaska and Lousiana has counties. Nevertheless we don't need this information twice. Merge and Redirect to Districts of Lebanon. --Angr 00:22, 8 Feb 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. Rje 06:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dwain Messer

[edit]

Delete, The subject is non-notable, and the entry itself is a blatant advertisement for his product. As such I believe it should be deleted as per Wikipedia's policy. Agriculture 05:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • He has also opened for several big country music stars such as Kenny Chesney and Bryan White sounds notable, but I agree that with one CD out and an official site that hasn't been updated for more than a year, it's unlikely it's noteworthy. However, I don't think the article is particularly ad-like. Abstain. Mgm|(talk) 08:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
"and he has released his first album which can be purchased on his official site" - This sounds like a blatant ad to me. Agriculture 09:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep perhaps not a superstar, but anyone who's opened for Lee Ann Womack in front of 30,000 people can no longer be considered any sort of neophyte, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with that one, a lot of non-notables open for notables. What bothers me most is the ad like nature of the entry, and the fact that his website hasn't been updated in a year suggesting this is just a marketing campaign for an unknown. Agriculture 18:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with you on two points: 1) The entire assertion that the article is ad-like seems to come from the one statement about being able to buy his CD on his website. I agree that that sentence should probably go... but deleting an article because of one iffy sentence isn't right. If I added a sentence to The Beatles saying that Beatles CDs can be bought at record stores, that would not be grounds to remove the whole article. 2) More importantly, the whole thing about the website not being updated in a year is SIMPLY NOT TRUE! On the very front page it says "Don't Miss The Show with Exile on Feb. 26th 2005". That must have been written fairly recently, unless it's common among Country artists to schedule shows years in advance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
The Beatles are very notable, so there is no comparison. The fact is this stub contains little more than the ad, removing the ad practically removes the article. Do searches for Dwain, it's tough to find anything about him. This reeks of an unknown musician trying to get some sales through wikipedia. Not notable, and using this Wikipedia for something it is not. Agriculture 22:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. GRider\talk 19:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable --BenWilson 19:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/cleanup. Samaritan 20:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Opening for big music stars (who they?) might make you think he's someone. But I've seen countless bands/individuals open for bigger names and then disappear off the face of the planet. One CD and an unused official site rather sounds as if this chap has gone the same way. (Apologies in advance to C&W fans if I'm wrong!) --Marcus22 21:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - less than 60 Google hits (including his own website), article reads like a promo. Megan1967 05:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ComCat.
  • Keep. While this is a borderline case, a CD (albeit indy) plus a US club tour in 2003 plus support slots for a number of high profile country stars means that this person is worth having an article on. High profile acts want an opening act who the crowd will like - otherwise it puts them in a bad mood for the main show. The fact that he has won opening slots for a number of stars indicates that Messer must have a fairly good reputation. By the way, his website refers to upcoming gigs which indicates that he is still active. Capitalistroadster 07:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe someday he'll be a noteworthy performer, but that isn't today. Wagiles 01:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He may be notable someday, but not today. Indrian 20:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and categorize it as non notable Faethon35 09:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What does that mean? Carrp | Talk 14:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Please refer to that user's entry in Wikipedia:clueless newbies and the further discussion that it links to. The vote is discountable. Uncle G 18:51, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The article needs cleanup but I think he's barely notable enough to include. Carrp | Talk 14:59, 12 Feb 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 ambiguous. 5 clear "delete", 5 "merge". Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to merge. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Studnet

[edit]

Seems to be an advert of some type, capitalizing on a misspell, something that could be done about a billion times, Delete .--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Okay, I'm new to this. This is my first contribution, so please forgive the protocol. I entered this because I've seen the phenomenon countless times on slashdot and other boards and found it interesting, as interesting as cow orker definitely. It is certainly not an advert (what would it be advertising?) Furthermore, a simple google search on the word reveals the commonality and fortuitousness of the typo word: "Results 1 - 10 of about 33,600 for studnet" is what I get. I feel this is a valid and entertaining contribution to the wikipedia. --User:redfenix
    • Welcome to Wikipedia. No one disputes this is a common typo, but so what? There are lots of typos, shall we create articles for them all? Why? What use would that be to anyone? Delete.. Gamaliel 05:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Consider the term cow orker. What use is it? It's a typo as well (with only 18,900 google hits, I should add.) and it's a valid wikipedia article. The use for both of these terms are for amusement and internet culture. Also, they both demonstrate the amusement that can be derived from common interactions over the net and common mishaps from which many entertaining conversations have sprung. Sure, they're both typos. Sure, thousands upon thousands of typos can be found online. However, not many offer some form of humor--some respite from the droning of articles, conversations, and listings that appear before us daily. If other typos have been witnessed and chuckled over by as many netizens as studnet or cow orker then perhaps they should have articles as well. These words are not just typos, but recurring humorous tidbits seen throughout the internet. Frankly, I personally was so surprised that it wasn't in the wikipedia already that I actually decided to become a participant just to add it. --User:redfenix
  • Delete or Merge with some article discussing common "mis-spells" that really aren't. For example, "cow orker" is a way of subtly offending one's co-worker. However, what import is there to 'studnet?' --BenWilson 19:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge on Typographical error page. — RJH 21:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 22:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (couldn't think of a clever typo). Josh Cherry 01:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Typographical error. Megan1967 05:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, merge and redirect to typo. I can agree with that. --Redfenix 06:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I condensed it slightly, to enable myself to vote merge/redirect. Kappa 19:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • merge/redirect Bart133 (t) 05:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Deltee. I don't beleive every tpyo should haev its own aritcle. Carrp | Talk 15:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 16:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blood alcohol test assumptions

[edit]

A rant about the fairness of tests used to ascertain if a person is under the influence of alcohol. Points out the obvious: human variability introduces a margin of error into medical tests. Has no business being in Wikipedia, though a (heavily edited) sentence or two might be worth adding to the appropriate articles on blood-alcohol testing. jdb ❋ 04:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • As far as I know they take into account variability of people in breathalyzer tests. Merge a mention of possible errors in a few sentences into Blood alcohol content and delete. Why isn't there a breathalyzer article? Mgm|(talk) 08:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. There's no reason for this information to not be under Blood alcohol content. --TenOfAllTrades 13:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • FWIW a bit of history of the article. About a year ago, this was 80% of the content of drunk driving. Obviously it leaned towards POV, and wasn't central to the issue, so I spun it off (GFDL and all)[1]. Also, this was within my first month at Wikipedia, so I might have taken more drastic measures if I had been more experienced. It was also verbatim from another Website[2], although someone claimed to have gotten permission. And, no, they absolutely do NOT account for variability when it comes to BAC--they use a test to get a number, and everything following obeys that number--it doesn't matter that some people are better drivers, and can pass all field sobriety tests at .30 or higher, while others fail at .06--the number rules, not the level of impairment. I've been reluctant to start the breathalyzer article because it is actually a trademark for a specific brand of breath test device or alcohol breath test device, and who knows what the ideal title is. Niteowlneils 15:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. Any useful, NPOV information should be merged with Blood alcohol content. There are no sources and it seems much more like a rant than a legitimate article. Carrp | Talk 16:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Blood alcohol content, no redirect. Megan1967 05:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 15:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bresenham's line algorithm Delphi code

[edit]

Same reasoning applies to four pages: Bresenham's line algorithm Delphi code, Bresenham's line algorithm Python code, Bresenham's line algorithm C code, Bresenham's line algorithm Visual basic code. All are just implementations of Bresenham's line algorithm. They might belong in a textbook on computer graphics (perhaps at Wikibooks), but are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. (There already is an implementation in the Bresenham's line algorithm, to boot.) jdb ❋ 04:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Vik Reykja 05:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Different implementions aren't needed. JimmyShelter 09:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the code in the main article doesn't describe the algorithm clearly enough, improve it. Gazpacho 04:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implementations of this algorithm in different languages aren't helpful. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (same for the other languages). The algorithm described in the main article is sufficient, and ports to any other computer language can be made based on this code. An alternative to deleting is moving to Wikisource. — Brim 08:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiSource. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 01:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bresenham's line algorithm Visual basic code

[edit]

Same reasoning applies to four pages: Bresenham's line algorithm Delphi code, Bresenham's line algorithm Python code, Bresenham's line algorithm C code, Bresenham's line algorithm Visual basic code. All are just implementations of Bresenham's line algorithm. They might belong in a textbook on computer graphics (perhaps at Wikibooks), but are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. (There already is an implementation in the Bresenham's line algorithm, to boot.) jdb ❋ 04:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Different implementions aren't needed. JimmyShelter 09:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the code in the main article doesn't describe the algorithm clearly enough, improve it. Gazpacho 04:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implementations of this algorithm in different languages aren't helpful. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiSource. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 01:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bresenham's line algorithm Python code

[edit]

Same reasoning applies to four pages: Bresenham's line algorithm Delphi code, Bresenham's line algorithm Python code, Bresenham's line algorithm C code, Bresenham's line algorithm Visual basic code. All are just implementations of Bresenham's line algorithm. They might belong in a textbook on computer graphics (perhaps at Wikibooks), but are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. (There already is an implementation in the Bresenham's line algorithm, to boot.) jdb ❋ 04:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Different implementions aren't needed. JimmyShelter 09:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the code in the main article doesn't describe the algorithm clearly enough, improve it. Gazpacho 04:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implementations of this algorithm in different languages aren't helpful. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete ComCat 01:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiSource. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing encyclopedic in here. If the author wants to move it to WikiSource, even better. Oleg Alexandrov 00:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 01:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bresenham's line algorithm C code

[edit]

Same reasoning applies to four pages: Bresenham's line algorithm Delphi code, Bresenham's line algorithm Python code, Bresenham's line algorithm C code, Bresenham's line algorithm Visual basic code. All are just implementations of Bresenham's line algorithm. They might belong in a textbook on computer graphics (perhaps at Wikibooks), but are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. (There already is an implementation in the Bresenham's line algorithm, to boot.) jdb ❋ 04:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, the implementations are in different languages, and are simple enough for novice programmers to decipher. Very few other sites provide all these implementations, and when they do, the code is not simple.
  • Keep, I agree with the vote above. Besides, I found the code very useful when building a renderer, and the code isn't on Wikibooks (where the word 'Bresenham' draws a blank)-- TrojanSirius 02:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    All the more reason to move it to a book there. (Note that the last two votes were entered by IP 128.125.13.207 within fifteen minutes of each other). jdb ❋ 05:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    The code is already explained in Pascal in the article on Bresenham's line algorithm. I do not understand why you think it merits four additional implementations. It's like having four different recipies for fried flounder -- they might belong in the Wikibooks Cookbook, but not here. jdb ❋ 05:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I do have four recipes on fried flounder, but my vote was a mistake (wrong VfD article). I've struck it out. Megan1967 09:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopic. The algorithm has it's own page, different implementations aren't needed. JimmyShelter 09:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the code in the main article doesn't describe the algorithm clearly enough, improve it. Gazpacho 04:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I dont´t think a code listing by itself makes a relevante article. Perhaps these could be incorporated into the main article, or (better) on a Wikibook. --Marx Gomes 04:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implementations of this algorithm in different languages aren't helpful. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete ComCat 01:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiSource. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mellows Motor Gang

[edit]

A transcript of some sort. No Google hits for "Mellows Motor Gang". Is this a Hoax, or something that we can transwiki to wikisource? - RedWordSmith 01:11, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to be more or less nonsense, with plenty of non-sequiters and things that make you go 'hmm'. I do know that S F Cody was a real person, but the rest of this seems more than a little bit suspect. Hoax at worst, context-free historical sub-footnote at best. Either way, doesn't seem worth transwikiing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sure what the point of it is. Needs something descriptive... Like if they could explain what that is, I might change my vote. Jeshii 02:31, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even know what this is. JoaoRicardo 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an encyclopedic article. Mgm|(talk) 08:40, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Associated edits to 1920 in Ireland by the same hand have been removed as 'possible hoax' - but I suspect genuine. Besides the apalling quality of the editing confirms stereotypes of the Irish. -- A closet Fenian 2005 Feb 8, 11:40 (GMT)
    • Comment. RHaworth, I was the one who did the editing you mention above. I don't know much about Irish history, I just acted on a "better safe than sorrow" atitude. Please feel free to revert me if you think this is not a hoax. JoaoRicardo 03:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Utter nonsense.... -- Cabhan 04:00, 12 Feb 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason_Kottke

[edit]
Previous VfD listed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (1st nomination)

Not notable, vanity/advertisement. This guy is a blogger, made a font, is his "Lifetime Achievement Award" some kind of plea for his notability? Skrewler 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 22:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Missouri Hall

[edit]

Some college dorm. Article fails to establish notability beyond being one of the countless places college students live for a few years. Since it was only built in the 60's, seems unlikely to have some (presently unmentioned) encyclopedic backstory. Niteowlneils 02:45, 7 Feb 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 UNCLEAR. I'm going to merge it, then put the disambig in place. dbenbenn | talk 23:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dobson Hall

[edit]

Some college dorm. Article fails to establish notability beyond being one of the countless places college students live for a few years. Since it was only built in the 60's, seems unlikely to have some (presently unmentioned) encyclopedic backstory/history. Niteowlneils 02:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect Truman State University. --ZayZayEM 02:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Caution before redirecting - there are a number of similar college halls in the US of the same name, and a hall in Bolton in the UK. Is this clearly the most famous building of this name (which I'm really not convinced it is), or just the first one to come up in a google search? Average Earthman 03:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig. I have slapped together a disambiguation page to address Average Earthman's concerns. It's on the article's talk page—what do people think? (Feel free to add your own Dobson Halls.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dorms aren't notable. --Idont Havaname 00:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It is useful to document the ordinary details of ordinary life. Authors of fiction, for example, can capture the proper feel of a fictional setting by basing it on ordinary facts about a real place.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ryle Hall

[edit]

Some college dorm. Article fails to establish notability beyond being one of the countless places college students live for a few years. Since it was only built in the 60's, seems unlikely to have some (presently unmentioned) encyclopedic backstory/history. Niteowlneils 02:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Girtar

[edit]

It's the non-encyclopedic guitar of a non-notable member of an "already-deleted as not-notable" band. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/GrindSkull. Delete. Joyous 02:40, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were: 1 nomination, 1 delete, 1 keep. It can of course be re-nominated. dbenbenn | talk 23:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IP Multimedia Subsystem

[edit]

Advertising.--ZayZayEM 02:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or complete cleanup. The title is for a subject worthy of an article, but article as it stands is 100% advertisment. Might just be better to delete and have someone start from scratch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:11, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with cleanup and expand. Don't see why it is related to any form of advertising

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 02:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

IP SAN

[edit]

Advertising?--ZayZayEM 02:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 02:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Byron Smart

[edit]

reinstate or e;se

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 02:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Over-masturbation

[edit]

This article contains nonsense. — J3ff 03:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Not nonsense, but delete as original research unless references can be provided. Kappa 03:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to masturbation. Discuss the effects of over-masturbation there, with references to medical literature plz. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the assertion that it's a "serious problem among adolescents", as well as most of the symptoms, are products of the author's imagination. I wouldn't even call it original research, it's just a BJAODN attempt but without the humour or subtlety to make it to BJAODN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as twaddle. -- Hoary 03:43, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had a dirty joke all ready to go, but I'll save it for a more worthy target. 23skidoo 04:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV original research, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure the extreme fatique can be true in some cases, but all the other problems are simply untrue (total fiction). Delete. Mgm|(talk) 08:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Definete delete - Does not merit a separate encyclopedia entry
  • Delete. Do not redirect, there is no reason to believe that "over-masturbation" is term that people are going to search on. --BM 21:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ComCat.
  • Delete, or transwiki to Wankipedia. Antandrus 04:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL!! That comment alone is worth a BJAODN and a Barnstar. Delete the article, BTW. The part about lacerations scared me. - Lucky 6.9 22:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV/original research/neo-christian bullshit (no lacerations yet and I'm 31!!!!!) max rspct 22:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even worth a redirect. Just get rid of it. It serves no useful purpose. -- Cabhan 04:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what does this tell anyone? Brookie 14:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 02:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Greely Middle School

[edit]

non-notable middle school. — J3ff 03:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yet another school that produces students who appear to be unable to write a remotely interesting article about the school (are there any schools that offer no extracurricular activities? Does anything differentiate this school at all from a thousand other establishments?). I'd suggest merging with the local geographical article, but at the moment there isn't anything worth merging. Average Earthman 03:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What a great school - the kids can write a useless article about it on Wikipedia. Delete and I'm not sending my kids there. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gently delete, no info worth merging, not different from any other school in the world. Mgm|(talk) 08:46, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Make a mention in Cumberland, Maine and delete - Skysmith 11:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no useful content whatsoever. —Korath (Talk) 16:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Maine School Administrative District 51. Niteowlneils 16:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Niteowlneils. Redirect. This is just useless as an article at present. - Lucky 6.9 17:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cumberland, Maine. All schools are notable in my opinion, but the information presented here only merits a minor merge/redirect. GRider\talk 19:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 00:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Middle schools are like pennies. Most of them are worth: a penny. A very few of them are worth more to collectors. This school is like the pennies that are worth a penny. Not -notable. --BM 01:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Inherently notable Sheesh! Did I say that? Delete Denni☯ 02:23, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
    • You did! You did! I thought I'd have to send a cyber-Wiki-noogie your way. Had me worried there, Denni...welcome back!!!!! - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Aw shucks, Lucky - someone has to keep these egregious inclusionists in line. (Blush). Denni☯ 04:12, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see anything that sets it apart from thousands of other schools. Carrp | Talk 01:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 20:17, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. 05:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note: Above vote was made by User:Gwalla --Andylkl 13:50, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inherently notable and has potential to be encyclopedic. (And I don't appreciate the "humour" for using those 2 words) --Andylkl 13:50, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Welcome back, Lenni. I mean Denni. —RaD Man (talk) 19:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't even rise to the level of a yellow pages entry. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:17, 14 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr Kash Jaffrey

[edit]

One of the most prominent Calgary, Canada based financial speculator. But his prominence isn't yet reflected by Google. -- Hoary 03:47, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

  • Speedy as constant re-creation - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kash Jaffrey. I tagged this as "Kash Jaffrey (SPECULATOR)" for speedy earlier this evening, the tag was deleted, tag again, then it was eventually deleted and Curps protected it. Samaritan 04:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a speedy and the writer needs to be on a long term block, as he has tried to put this article up several times under different variations of the name.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, user blocked for 7 days. RickK 05:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 01:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Logvinenkase

[edit]

No google results - misspelling or nonsense? Rhobite 03:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hopefully speedy, user history indicates vandalism. Contents is:

"Logvinenkase is the enzyme that breaks down estrone." Kappa 03:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    • P.S. Admins can refer to the history of Nathan tek Kappa 06:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • [www.pubmed.com Pubmed] doesn't turn anything up either for Lonvinenkase. Looks like hoax. Estrone exists, though. Delete unless proof of existence can be provided. Mgm|(talk) 08:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Pubmed or Google references. If it's a misspelling, I can't figure out what it should be. --TenOfAllTrades 16:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a biochemist called EM Logvinenko who has done research and published on enzymes, but I have been unable to find out any abstracts on Logvinenkase. Megan1967 05:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Created by PickUpAxis (talk • contribs) whose entire contribution history has been vandalism or nonsense (Nathan tek already deleted). -- Curps 02:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: see also Estrone (history · watch). Note [5]: Estrone is produced by God, directed by Elena Logvinenko and Nathan Tek.
  • Delete, no refs in the web of science, or in metabolism databases.Estrone is a real horome though, and is metabolised by Estradiol 17 beta-dehydrogenase --nixie 02:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fornicators

[edit]

Claims to be a manga whose title is simply an unfortunate translation error. However, Google cannot locate any relevant hits for the manga title + the main character's name; for the main character's father; for the main antagonist; for the supposed author of the manga; or for the magazine where the manga supposedly originally appeared. Smells like hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) Note: this VfD has been vandalized by 203.141.129.203, primary author on this and the other articles.

  • Delete, it's a hoax. Shimeru 07:32, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, article as it stands in un-encyclopaedic, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Kaneko

[edit]

See also Fornicators, the manga that this character is supposedly a major character in. Google cannot locate any relevant hits for the manga title + the main character's name; for Alex Kaneko (claimed variously to be the main character's father or surrogate father); for the main antagonist; for the supposed author of the manga; or for the magazine where the manga supposedly originally appeared. Smells like hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a hoax. Shimeru 07:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte, no question about this one... names aren't even remotely manga-esque. --Sudachi 05:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Koichiro Narita

[edit]

See Fornicators, Alex Kaneko, "Under Sides". This is supposedly a "Moderately popular" manga author but for his supposedly current most popular work, Google cannot locate any relevant hits for the manga title + the main character's name; for the main character's father; for the main antagonist; for the supposed author of the manga; or for the magazine where the manga supposedly originally appeared. Smells like hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a hoax. Shimeru 07:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte, absolutely made up. Sudachi
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be a hoax. Did a search for 成田 孝一郎 etc. without any success. Would need to see convincing evidence that this person actually exists to change my vote. --MarkSweep 06:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Under Sides"

[edit]

See also Fornicators and Alex Kaneko. This is supposedly another manga by the author of Fornicators, only Google cannot locate any relevant hits for the manga title + the main character's name; for the main character's father; for the main antagonist; for the supposed author of the manga; or for the magazine where the manga supposedly originally appeared. Smells like hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a hoax. Shimeru 07:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible hoax. Megan1967 06:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rui Yang

[edit]

non-notable high school student's resume — J3ff 04:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity page, this is pretty standard deletion material (maybe even candidate for speedy deletion? Agriculture 04:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Greatest achievement is Honor Roll, which is somewhat below the bar; delete. Samaritan 04:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, vanity page Glaurung 08:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I give him 0/10 for failing the reading test - since he failed to understand the instruction not to write articles about himself. Average Earthman 10:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 00:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 5 delete, 2 merge, 1 keep. dbenbenn | talk 23:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Difference between hard goods, soft goods, and dry goods

[edit]

Non-notable and rather pointless. --Woohookitty 05:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Original research, so transwiki and delete. Alternativly, move it to the Reference desk or create an article about types of goods (eg. whitegoods). Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup/move by creating an article or set of articles on types of goods per Alphax. Samaritan 15:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge, no redirect, per Megan1967 below. Samaritan 15:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Eek. Delete. Josh Cherry 01:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Good (economics), no redirect. Megan1967 06:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to the talk page of Good (economics), if that's an option. Otherwise delete or merge at discretion of admin. Kappa 19:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Pointless. Delete. Radiant! 11:24, Feb 16, 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. Rje 00:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Athanasios Kafkalides

[edit]

Few Google hits (in English anyway), perhaps more in Greek? Can someone supply the original Greek-alphabet version of his name so we could check.... Seems to describe some unusual research. -- Curps 05:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The Greek neuropsychiatrist Dr Athanassios Kafkalides was born in 1919 and died in Athens in 1987. Given the time he lived in, I'm not surprised there's no google hits. Google doesn't find everything. Maybe someone familiar in the field can do a literature search? Mgm|(talk) 08:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can find 30 normal google hits and one hit on Google Scholar. ISI Web of Knowledge shows nothing, but then their conference proceedings only date back to 1990, so this is only a blank on the journal side. The research does appear fairly unusual. No vote as yet. Average Earthman 11:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep and wikify at least for now - Skysmith 11:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup. I would hope, though, that someone will provide some checkable references. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I guess. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Horrell

[edit]

Not notable. Delete. utcursch 05:15, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Name gets 5 google hits, none of them referring to a student film maker. No mention on IMDB. Not notable. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 08:58, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Independent film makers need to have had their films widely distributed (US ones at least nationally, preferably internationally, with a reasonable number of screens) or have won a prize at a major independent film festival to warrant an article. No evidence of remotely approaching that here. Average Earthman 13:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Up and coming filmmakers should have pages so people can follow thier progress
    • Above vote was added by the author of the article. utcursch 06:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, possible concealed vandalism. Agriculture 04:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Note to the above, you need to sign your post for it to count.
  • Delete, not notable - 5 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. "Thier" sockpuppet doesn't help, y'know. :^) - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 8 Feb 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. Rje 00:42, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

2147483648 (number)

[edit]

No informational/encyclopedic value or use. This was obviously a page created in (comical) response to 2147483647 (number), with no other purpose. --Theaterfreak64 05:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This number gets 258,000 google hits. The previous one (2147483647) gets 588,000 hits and the next one gets only 3,630. Kappa 06:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. expanded to mention overflow errors which are probably why it gets so many hits. Kappa
  • I disagree with the initial comment: it does have value, because it is the numerical value of a long integer. Keep. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:31, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • It may have a numerical value, but does it have encyclopedic value? Mgm|(talk) 09:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of those long numbers whose digits professional programmers can recite from memory, given its wide significance in computing. Other one is 4294967296 (number) that we also have an article for. jni 09:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was certainly not created in comical response to anything. 2147483647, 2147483648, 4294967295 and 4294967296 are all interesting numbers, useful and immediately recognizable for any programmer. Fredrik | talk 11:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-7 14:32 Z
  • Comment - "immediately recognizable for any programmer" isn't necessarily true. I'm a professional C++ programmer and I didn't recognize the number initially; granted, I don't usually dwell on the size of variables or their binary equivalents. My first thought was that the number was a phone number with area code (I wonder who's at the other end of 214-748-3648?). slambo 16:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
I checked with ATT directory page at [6] and it says: no one. Someone can probably get it if they want it. area code 214 is part of Dallas TX.
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Merits inclusion on the worlds greatest online "encyclopedia". GRider\talk 19:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Powers of 2 aren't notable, including 2^31. People recognize a lot of different numbers, but that doesn't make them encyclopedia topics. 4294967296 (number) might be deleted, too, if it were only 2^32. But it has at least one other interesting property. --BM 20:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful information. ElBenevolente 00:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Matteh (talk) 00:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but stop at 2^32 or 2^64. --MarkSweep 06:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the achievements of my computing career was to trace the sum of $42,949,672.96 which had apparently gone missing from the accounts of a bank. -- RHaworth 08:51, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, I'm a geek. Carrp | Talk 01:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The nowra boys

[edit]

If they introduced skateboarding to New South Wales, you'd think they'd garner more than 12 google hits. No notability proven, nor, indeed, verifiability, given that most of those hits refer to some sort of Boy Scout-esque organization. Meelar (talk) 06:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-notable, delete. -- Hoary 07:01, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Vanity, created by User:Nowraboy. Delete. RickK 07:11, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • If they really were involved in Skateboarding in NSW in the late 80s, they should mention something to establish notability - like where they skated and who else was around at the time. Delete as vanity for one, nn. for another. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • They claimed to have set up skateboarding in the Nowra region in the late 1980's which I doubt is notable. Add to the fact that I holidayed in Ulladulla near Nowra in the 1970s and skateboarding was well established then, these claims are false. All we are left with is a small bunch of skateboarders in Nowra in the late 1980s which leads to the conclusion that we should Delete the article.Capitalistroadster 09:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Skateboarding is a very underground culture, look up the z boys, or gator, very deep hardcore lifestyle, this is one of the first introductions to the internet of a very small but powerful chapter of australias own skateboarding history, there is alot more to life than what you may find on google. However.... these days there are documentaries abounding about these times and people, I am certain skateboarding was established in the seventies in Ulladulla, but a new breed of skater and skateboarding was developing in the late eighties, shame none of the ulladulla locals have provided this online encyclopedia with some of their history, because history it is! and as humerous as this particular submission may seem, it reflects the time and people. Please leave this legacy of history for the sports millions of growing devotees, there is a book in the works and also a short documentary, this page on wikipedia is the first of many sources of information reguarding this chapter of history. One of the flaws of the earths history is the censorship of so much of it, we can not trace accurately back more than a few hundred years,,, lets not let ignorance rule in this millenium. thanks


this page was created firstly as a template so the many people involved can add and create a rich tapestry of the accounts of the time, if the administrators can hold onto this page for a week User talk:RickK| will get his notability, but the intrest expressed since yesterday afternoon is very flattering. skate or die!

I'm afraid the turning of that article, or Wikipedia in general, into your own advertising medium isn't going to change anybody's Delete vote to a Keep. In fact, it may cause neutrals to vote Delete. RickK 06:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 13 Google hits with only 2 relevant, possible vanity. I quite like Nowra, nice place. Megan1967 06:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nowra back then was a drug infested, bigotted, red neck, right-wing, fundamentalist town with chronic unemployment (is it different now?). It's a wonder anyone even got out alive. Those kids found something that bound them together and turned them into survivors. I remember their rolling thunder. A story that would make a great little film. --Infradig (andrew) 11:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral; if to be kept it should be The Nowra boys or The Nowra Boys; is there any documentation of this at all? If so, I might vote to keep. If not, Wikipedia is not the place for primary sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment at this stage I cannot find anything substanial or encyclopaedic on this group. Megan1967 00:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in Nowra and have never heard of them - hardly notable.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Trekking himalayas

[edit]

A how-to, POV. RickK 07:15, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopediac. utcursch 08:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No direction. Badly constructed. Scanty on information
  • Delete, POV original research, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 06:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 00:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paul I. Adujie

[edit]

Template got added by an anon on Jan 28. I'm just listing it here. Looks to be either copyvio or original research. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Justin Fatica

[edit]

Non-notable and heavy vanity. --Woohookitty 08:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 16 Google hits, 8 of which display. --Idont Havaname 23:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte. Vanity pure and simple. Sudachi 05:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 10 Google hits including Wikipedia article, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TYGR! TYGR!

[edit]

Band vanity. -- Hoary 08:36, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

  • Indeed. Delete - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, nn. Delete. GRider\talk 22:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Tygr! Tygr" + band -> 51 Google results. Band vanity! Delete. --Idont Havaname 23:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:15, 11 Feb 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 -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Similarities between The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter

[edit]
Claims that

J. K. Rowling copied J. R. R. Tolkien's book, The Lord of the Rings, for her series, Harry Potter.

with no evidence whatsoever. Also claims to be a disambiguation page. --Phil | Talk 08:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Loose talk

  • Speedy delete Slander and misleading title. Copying would've resulted in a book about Frodo Baggins. Accusations of plagiarism (if author intended that by saying copying), if noteworthy should be at J. K. Rowling. Real article about similarities would be welcome, as several fan columns have proven they do exist. Mgm|(talk) 10:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wanted to speedy delete this myself, but I'll let the VFD run a little bit longer, so I'm sure others agree before I do. Mgm|(talk) 10:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For obviously silly stuff like this we should be using the 'nonsense' tag rather than 'vfd'. --Lee Hunter 11:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, what Mgm said. Note that it's not patent nonsense, so {{nonsense}} is inappropriate. —Korath (Talk) 15:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless. I might have agreed to an NPOV revision or merging with the two main articles if there was actually any content. 23skidoo 16:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and feel free to speedy. Kappa 17:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anthrianthropy

[edit]

No google hits. Seems to be a neologism. Meelar (talk) 08:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:28, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kaiczar

[edit]

If this was a historically significant term, then google is saying so. As it is, I'm thinking somebody pooped this up. --BesigedB (talk) 09:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, dic def. Mgm|(talk) 09:57, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 36 hits mostly referring to a Blogger, neologism. Megan1967 06:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This name will be known for fusion of different systems of belief as in religion or philosophy

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Rje 00:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Loamhedge (book)

[edit]

May be notable, but is currently a badly written summary of the plot. No context. Mgm|(talk) 10:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep The book is part of a very popular series. I've added some context and cleaned up the text a bit. I don't know the book so I suspect it needs more work. --Lee Hunter 12:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on the context provided by User:LeeHunter, I hereby retract my request for deletion. Redwall is indeed notable. 131.211.210.157 13:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Agree with Lee Hunter. GRider\talk 19:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or (better) move it to Loamhedge, where one can also talk about the place (which is arguably more important to the fictional history of Redwall than the one book is to the series). -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --Centauri 07:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to Loamhedge. — Asbestos | Talk 23:11, 13 Feb 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 copyvio -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Watermaze

[edit]

Either original research or a copy vioGeni 11:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Copyvio of [7] . Kappa 12:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have tagged the page and listed it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Plek 13:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that this was posted by the copyright holder. Perhaps he will confirm. Needs wikifying though. --Daedelus 13:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, I think it would be advertising.Kappa 19:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The votes were 1 delete, 1 keep. dbenbenn | talk 00:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Good Omens characters

[edit]

This says it all:

"This is a list of characters from the fantasy novel Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. It mostly reflects the Dramatis personae in the beginning of the book."

It's either a copyvio or something that should be truncated and merged with Good Omens.

  • Delete. -- Jordi·✆ 11:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly useful to someone interested in the book. Merge or keep. Kappa 13:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure it's a copyvio, since it's a verbatim copy from the book, though it's been a good five years since I've read it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely a copyvio excluding one "prince" instead of a "duke" and the placement of Dog in front of the full chorus; I have the book in my hands. —Korath (Talk) 16:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a Copyvio. It even says that it's a copyvio. Anyone "interested in the book" can read the book itself for this list. Such lists are usually useful only when the book doesn't have a Dramatis personae section. Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • If and when the copyright vio can be cleaned up, I would vote Keep. Megan1967 06:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

CUMA

[edit]

The text of this article is very odd (for example CUMA supposedly stands for 'Children's Underhanded Maturity Association') and I can't find any mention of the organization on the web. --Lee Hunter 11:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the whole thing is very wierd: "Its original name has since been lost due to the death of the majority of the original members." is just one bit that doesn't make any sense... the original members died off and nobody remembered what the organisation they belonged to was called?! Also, if this was truly a real organisation (with an American branch, as the article says) then I'm sure they'd have at least one Google hit somewhere, somehow. I'm convinced it's almost certainly a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Samaritan 15:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified, although I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist based on Google. --Goobergunch|? 00:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Chris D. Kelly

[edit]

According to the article his most significant achievement is serving on the executive of Conservative Way Forward an invitation only subgroup of the British Conservative Party. Serving on a business or political board is not inherently notable. --Lee Hunter 11:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't my strongest vote, but delete. His greatest notability actually seems to be running for Chairman of Conservative Future (if he won he'd sure merit an article) and now working in the office of Tory leader Michael Howard (if in a senior position, again). His CVs say he's appeared in major British newspapers, but Google shows little but a brief mention in a political miscellanies column in the Guardian. He also addressed two Conservative conventions (if he were a keynote speaker from the stage and not a delegate from a floor mike, again). Btw, someone had better look some of those blue (and red) links at Conservative Way Forward. I'd keep with a little more evidence of notability as a pundit or higher position, but I strongly doubt it's out there at this point. Samaritan 15:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I told you it wasn't my strongest vote. The interest from Dbiv, a noted and published British political researcher, moves me to a keep. Samaritan 23:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now based on his position in Michael Howard's private office. People in this position for Conservative Party leaders often have senior political careers. Though I did enjoy the part of his CV which claimed that when he worked at The Gap "Performed customer facing role in retail sales and payment" (translates as "I worked on the till"). Dbiv 22:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't accept "might do something of note in the future" elsewhere. We shouldn't here. Until he actually has that senior political career, Delete. Uncle G 17:02, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sorry, this guy is a wannabe. Strong delete. Maybe in ten years, he might achieve something politically, but not yet. His cv is flimsy, and even his own self-promotional web-site can only scrape this rather pathetic list together:
    • Chris attends Silver Anniversary Dinner with Lady Thatcher
    • Chris attends Silver Anniversary Dinner with Lady Thatcher
    • Chris submits response to BBC Charter Review
    • Chris campaigns with Michael Howard
    • Chris accompanies Michael Howard on Black Country visit
    • Chris on stage to hear Michael Howard deliver his Party Leadership acceptance speech
    • Chris Backs IDS
    • Roads should be the priority: Chris writes to Commercial Motor
  • HowardB 10:12, 2005 Feb 8 (according to history Uncle G 17:02, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC))
Yes, Uncle G , 'twas me -- mea culpa HowardB 17:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fetching Michael Howard's tea is not notability. --Calton 06:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: no significant achievements yet. Maybe in a few years, we'll see. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this chap is Nonnabe! Brookie 14:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Headfur

[edit]

That's a tad bit too specific, I think. --Conti|✉ 13:22, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, but could be easily and painlessly merged into the Slang section of the furry article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • 3410 Web and 438 Usenet hits. Transwiki to Wiktionary, merge per Starblind, and might as well redirect. Samaritan 15:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect... it's slang, but doesn't appear Wiktionary-worthy to me... --Idont Havaname 23:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Furry, and add redirect. Megan1967 06:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect unless anyone can write a decent article on the concept and issues surrounding it. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bill and dave

[edit]

2 results! How come I never heard of this? Non-notable vanity, I say. The article's creator (and supposedly the comic's creator too) even uploaded an image. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-7 13:19 Z

Was me (forgot to log in) Mgm|(talk) 13:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Cleduc 06:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Three fluid ounces

[edit]

Band vanity. Local/unsigned band from Manchester. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-7 13:21 Z

This page should not be deleted as it is about a genuine, and popular band on the UK, Manchester rock scene. This band is big enough to inform people about them. This is NOT publicity as is clear from the unbiased way the article has been written.It is purely informative.

  • Delete I enjoy quite a lot of Manchester music, but this seems below the bar for encyclopedic inclusion. Tried several search terms, for example "three fluid ounces" + Manchester; (three fluid ounces" + band; three fluid ounces" + music; 3floz + band; etc. None brought relevant results. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Additional note: When I did my research for this, the hit counter on their official site was at 206 visitors. This would seem to call into question the claim that they are popular or well-known even on a local level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The usual criterion for inclusion of bands is that they should have recordings published by recognized labels. This is a low threshold for notability, although it might not seem so to a band that doesn't have a recording contract yet. --BM 16:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --Idont Havaname 23:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - Filtered results give 1 Google hit, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 00:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mr Hairs

[edit]

not notable JoJan 23:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 23:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Eliseus Lean

[edit]

Non-notable and vanity. jni 14:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Possible attack page. ("He is famous for his femininity, commonly referred to by his peers as "that gay".") But generally sympathetic enough it might be vanity. Certainly, it's nothing encyclopedic; delete. Samaritan 15:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 23:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit for a blog, possible personal attack or prank. Megan1967 06:44, 8 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ishii Sho

[edit]

Vanity page. Nonsense and rude talk page a plus. A.Kurtz 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy as attack page, or delete as vanity. Kappa 15:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't think it's technically vanity, as hardly anyone would write something so primarily insulting about themselves. But it's a moot point, as a high-school soccer player wouldn't be encyclopedic in any case. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I also believe there's enough to speedy as an attack. Samaritan 18:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I'm a little uncomfortable deleting this with only 3 votes, especially given the other links at Metallica#DVD & Video. dbenbenn | talk 17:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Classic Album

[edit]

Appears to be an advert for a metallica DVD of some sort. Non notable and probably covered elsewhereGeni 15:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • There are eight such full-length Metallica videos, all but one with articles, at Metallica#DVD & Video. On the other hand, per Encyclopedia Metallica, it seems to have been an episode of VH1's Classic Albums. Samaritan 18:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible advert/promo. It looks like its been copied and pasted from somewhere - spelling mistakes and all. Megan1967 06:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Band is notable, and if individual albums are in WP, why not this video? Radiant! 12:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ruddock House

[edit]

Substub that hasn't been expanded since creation. Duplicates information already available in the Housing section of Caltech's page. Apparently not notable. --TenOfAllTrades 16:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Duplicate of information more usefully included already elsewhere. Average Earthman 16:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And investigate the rest of the links at California_Institute_of_Technology#Housing_system for notability, and remove as appropriate, so we don't keep revisiting this. Redirect unique names. Niteowlneils 17:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article no longer contains only duplicate information; basic history has been added. It is no longer a substub. 131.215.172.33 13:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Tom Schorsch

[edit]

Non-notable academic/techie. From article "... a full-time doctorate student at The Air Force Institute of Technology...Before that, he was an assistant professor of computer science...". Niteowlneils 16:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. (However, it the user returns and creates a user page, it could be moved there.) Rossami (talk) 01:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A "full-time doctorate student" ?? Please. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 07:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. —RaD Man (talk) 21:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rossami Kappa 09:36, 10 Feb 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. Rje 23:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of Early Music Ensembles

[edit]

"Early" relative to what? What qualifies as an "ensemble"? Current list seems awfully honky-centric. I'm not anti-list, but this topic seems better served by the Music in [year/decade] series. Also title is improperly capitalized. Niteowlneils 17:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I withdraw deletion nomination, but at a minimum it needs serious {cleanup} (and a proper title and de-orphaning and linking to Early music). A list with no context/definition other than a term that's probably unknown to 90% of the global population isn't very helpful. Niteowlneils 19:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Why nominate a page for deletion only to remove it two hours later! This is another example of the misuse of VfD - obviously good/useful articles (as reflected by every vote being a keep). Obvious keep --Oldak Quill 09:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Early music is what it's generally called. These ensembles are contemporary ensembles playing music that is in the genre. How can you detect the honkitude of the names of the ensembles on this list, anyway? And what difference does it make? (Note: there are a fair number of people of Asian ancestry playing early music; do they count as non-honkies?) Research a bit more before vfding, please. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An "early music ensemble" is one that specializes in music of the European classical tradition from the Baroque era and before; the term is in common usage. It's a pretty good start on the list, though some of the most famous ones are missing. Also some of the groups on this list cross over into folk music, and perhaps a few other styles (for example, the Baltimore Consort). Some day this subject will be covered by a category as well. Please google "early music ensemble" (26,400 hits). Antandrus 18:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It would have been nice if the article mentioned any of that, and wasn't an orphan. Niteowlneils 18:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I just added a few words to the top of the article; hope that helps for now. Antandrus 19:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Great--helps a lot--thanks. My dad was a public school music teacher for ~30 years, so I guess I assumed (incorrectly, obviously) that any common music jargon would at least 'ring a bell' for me. Niteowlneils
      • But it's not uncommon for lists not to provide any context other than their title. Perhaps clicking on a few of the entries on the list might have provided all the necessary context? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • None of the first three mention "early music", and the fourth needs to be dabbed, as it doesn't even refer to an ensemble. Niteowlneils 19:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve per jpgordon and Antandrus. Samaritan 18:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. What exactly is "honky-centric" and "honkitude"??? GRider\talk 19:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • moved to correct title. Gazpacho
  • Keep. I'm assuming this is some sort attempted joke VFD.--Centauri 21:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I've made it quite clear above that it was an honest mistake, that I've withdrawn. It happened to be my 15,000th edit--I would think that would allow people to cut me some slack for making a mistake. I will never understand why some VfD voters routinely violate official Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks), as well as semi-policy (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). Niteowlneils 22:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a bit rich to claim that listing something on VFD using perjorative terms like "honky" without first bothering to spend 30 seconds checking on Google for actual notability is an "honest mistake", but I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt this time round. Concerning editors who regularly violate policy, perhaps you should discuss the matter with them in the first instance.--Centauri 00:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • No problem from me; it was clearly a good-faith addition to VfD. I'll try to make the article better later (can't now, at work) Best regards, Antandrus 23:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: This is the second time this week that I've seen you insult somebody out of the blue for making a VfD nomination you disagreed with, Centauri. — Gwalla | Talk 05:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 00:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Should not have been nominated. A thoughtless waste of other users time. Philip 01:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I must note that is disheartening to see rude and thoughtless comments directed to an editor who made an honest mistake. No harm is done in listing an article on vfd, but much harm is done to civility and a sense of community when we attack someone for such a minor mistake. Gamaliel 03:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a minor mistake to nominate an article which isn't patent nonsense without doing any research. A google search is all that is required. Spurious listings on vfd are harmful on two counts: timewasting, and more importantly that they are a slap in the face to honest contributors and a threat to the ability of Wikipedia to retain editors. There are several cautions against hasty nominations on the guidance pages. Philip 04:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are many other things which waste far much more time than the occassional mistaken listing, like vanity pages which unfortunately can't be speedied. I don't see why some people stubbornly refuse to cut our fellow contributors some slack in cases like this, especially when they acknowledge it was an honest mistake. Rude responses to minor mistakes and refusal to assume good faith are far more of a "slap in the face to honest contributors" and much more of a "threat to the ability of Wikipedia to retain editors" than a harmless and quickly forgotten vfd listing. Gamaliel 05:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would be a far better idea for all editors to avoid using VFD to list articles about which they obviously know nothing. VFD is not a sandpit for the ignorant.--Centauri 07:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) Gamaliel 17:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm not going to continue an edit war over this nonsense. Apparently here calling people ignorant is okay but pointing out that it's rude to call people ignorant is a "personal attack". Gamaliel 22:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Read the policy. --Centauri 22:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just as soon as you read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Wikietiquette. Gamaliel 22:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I am generally an inclusionist, I don't believe in attacking people who nominate articles for deletion. It gives us the opportunity to sort the wheat from the chaff. However, the use of the word honky in the nomination was a mistake. I would plead with everyone to maintain Wikiquette in the discussions.Capitalistroadster 09:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Y'know, I started the snarkiness here in the very first response up above. Sorry, everyone. I'll try to mind my manners more carefully. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Deptford Mall

[edit]

A 30-year old shopping mall with movie theaters, just like countless others. Article doesn't establish notability. Niteowlneils 17:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't establish much of anything else, either.  :^) Nothing to merge and IMO pointless as a redirect. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Idont Havaname 23:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 01:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Two movie theaters. Two. Delete. Josh Cherry 01:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless notability is established in the article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, stubby article does not establish notability. Megan1967 06:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 17:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tuulk

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a means for promoting pet neologisms. Needless to say, the "motto" entirely fails the Google test. Uncle G 17:26, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Tuulk isn't a pet neologism, and we don't feel it to be appropriate that tuulk would be deleted on recommendation of some people who've never been in the eastern part of the Netherlands were it's in common use. And since when is google the criterium for testing things that happen in the real world? Keep tuulk listed!!! Hilbrand Bos

It's not the only criterion, but it's been a criterion for some time. And it's a good one, too. See Wikipedia:Google test. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, borders on patent nonsense -- Ferkelparade π 10:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep,Tuulk has nothing to do with neologism. Keep Tuulk listed.
  • An Encyclopedia without a phenomenon like tuulk is not a real encyclopedia, so keep this phenomenon in it!!! spellie 16:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP THIS, this things are intressant!!
    • Comment: both votes above added by User:195.85.147.43, who also saw fit to remove my delete vote. The other two anon voters have not contributed anything except their keep votes, User:spellie, who allegedly signed one vote, has no contributions at all. I smell sockpuppetry. -- Ferkelparade π 15:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe Dutch Wiktionary, nothing more. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong language, folks. As soon as it becomes well known in the English language world, call me :) --Woohookitty 00:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am Dutch and I've never even heard of it (and Holland isn't that large, really). 212.206.63.108 10:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The question should be whether Tuulk has something to add to your knowledge. You can discuss the importance for tuulk being incorporated in the encyclopedia, but what you should really care about is that one specific person that wants to know what tuulk is, because he hears it all the time in the that specific part of Holland. I know that it isn't a strong argument for many of you never have wondered what tuulk is. Anyway, I'm glad that everyone in this discussion - also in the english world - knows what tuulk is. That's a beginning. Hilbrand Bos

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Rje 23:53, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ahmet

[edit]

Classic attempt to justify a vanity page. Uncle G 17:29, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

  • Delete or redirect if this is a common spelling. The creator have also added this name to Ahmed and Mustafa. You get some hits on the name for this person. Jeltz talk 19:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable genealogy, vanity. Megan1967 06:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ahmed. -Sean Curtin 00:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sean Curtin's suggestion looks good to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Feb 9, 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. dbenbenn | talk 17:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mahmud

[edit]

Classic attempt to justify a vanity page. Uncle G 17:29, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Strike raid

[edit]

Some kind of non-notable game move, I take it? Deb 17:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Yes it's one of several special attacks in Kingdom Hearts but it's not mentioned there and there is nothing useful to merge. Kappa 18:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable fancruft. Megan1967 08:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:44, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Neverside

[edit]

And yet, strangely, despite all this talk of how it has all been revamped and how good it is all going to be Real Soon Now, the site is seemingly incapable of hosting this simple content on its own web pages. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 17:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Delete. Lovely spam, wonderful spam. --Modemac 18:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Advertising and it's not something WP needs. Inter 20:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisment. ElBenevolente 01:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn spam. GRider\talk 17:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Centritek

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a way to avoid paying Google for placed advertising. Uncle G 17:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

  • Delete When a company's name turns up only 24 Google hits, that's a not a good sign... when only 13 of those are displayed, that's a bad sign... when 5 of those are unrelated, that's a real bad sign... when the remaining 7 are mostly forum posts, that's an even worse sign... but when you realise that this company with virtually no web presence is a web services company of all things, you just want to stop and give them a hug just for trying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant ad. Unlikely to be encyclopedic if Starblind is right. Mgm|(talk) 19:18, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Giggle at Starblind. Inter 20:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already given; I'm giggling at Starblind too. --Idont Havaname 23:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikivertisment. ElBenevolente 01:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dipverse

[edit]

I'm not really sure what this is, but it looks like it should be deleted (if not speedy deleted). — Itai (f&t) 17:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research, nonsense, incompatible with Wikipedia license, non-encyclopedic... pretty much anything. Take your pick, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, licensing issues regarding an article about licensing issues. Appears to be promoting a new form of intellectual-property licensing. Appears to claim association with efforts of Free Software Foundation, but I've never seen FSF announcements mentioning this. Article includes pseudonym of apparent creator/proponent of this program, which appears to be an attempt to claim control of all the IP that passes through digital forms. Someone more active in F/OSS should correct me if I'm wrong and this is legitimate, but it hasn't showed up in, for example, Groklaw's extensive discussions about IP and copyright/patent/licensing issues. Barno 19:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Per the anonymous creator's comment ( edit history shows creator posted as Wyl.newland, new user created 31 Dec, only edit was this article on 2 Jan ) below, Move to user page and delete from article namespace. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, including under "not a soapbox", items 1 (advocacy), 5 (primary research), and 6 (self-promotion). However, per the creator's comments, I retract any implication of a hoax. Well-intentioned newbie was trying to "stake a ... claim in WP" and "invite the future to coexist alongside the recorded past". That's not the purpose of the wikipedia. Barno 23:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 01:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • PatiencePlease review: [8] and leave the dipverse page in place until mid March so I can use it as a living example of why my proposed umbrella license needs to handle trademarks. Mr. Stallman will require some persuading on the matter. I also plan to raise the mathematical need for a set comprising all intellectual property works sharing a given set of properties, for example, all works being compatible with wikipedia. I was going to add the word "wikiverse" but researched it enough to understand that the name was forbidden, because of intellectual property wranglings from the past. Therefore I made up a word. I need a linguistic anchor in your universe so that I can explain my theories, show my equations, and publish my inventions. I understand that my intent is to construct a hypothetical encyclopedia of the future. Rather that creating yet another intellectual property project, to add to the confusion, I decided to stake an intellectual property claim in wikipedia and see if I could persuade wikipedians to invite the future to coexist alongside the recorded past. In my estimation, the only requirement for cohabitation is that and “future POV” be demarcated in some obvious manner.
    • Can't you put this on your user page? Kappa 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty dippy. Noel (talk) 23:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:41, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Damnyourblastedeyes

[edit]

Was tagged speedy, but is not a candidate. Delete as non-notable band. jni 18:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable band.--File Éireann 18:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - 2 Google hits, possible band vanity. Megan1967 07:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amber Wayves

[edit]

Halifax, Nova Scotia drag queen and local musician. 128 web hits for "Amber Wayves" OR AmberWayves consisting of lists of drag queens or Halifax musicians, hir posts in guestbooks, etc. Sie doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. I'd have no problem with an inclusion of a link in an article about the Halifax music scene or Canadian drag queen musicians, but an article about hir at this point is too granular. Samaritan 18:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertisement. Not sufficently notable. Gamaliel 18:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note article has been deleted and recreated three times. Note that user has also created Reflections Cabaret, a non-notable Halifax bar. Both articles need to be deleted, but with something done to guard against their continued recreation. Bearcat 18:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article claims she/he was born Born July 28, 2002?! What the heck? I guess we certainly can't accuse Amber Wayves of grayin'. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I saw that, and reasoned it must be a different definition of "birth", eg. as a drag queen. Samaritan 19:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Amber Wayves writes: I can't believe you people are so blind as to the nature of my profile. I Amber Wayves am a performer in Halifax who performs music artists, I think that would clasify it as music. Since you all are so stupid, don't have a profile on me, and don't write an article. Yes Amber Wayves was born on the 28th of July 2002. Thanks alot
      • Wikipedia is not about having profiles on every single performer on the planet; only ones who are famous or notable within the development of a genre belong on here. This isn't a knock against you personally; musicians and performers whose fame is primarily local just don't meet the definition of what Wikipedia is here for. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. And it's not homophobia, either...I'm a gay man myself. Bearcat 19:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Page was edited into an anti-Wikipedia rant shortly after Amber posted her comment above. I've speedied. Bearcat 19:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Arvumi

[edit]

This is all rubbish. The annoyomous user added these phrases, ARVUMI is the changma word for Bandorbon (Bandarban) Hill District, a part of KORPOS MOHOL (KARPAS MAHAL)., which is nothing more than some nonsense. I think that the page should be deleted. -Mr Tan 12.27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tagged, but not put on VfD. Several in this series[9]. Niteowlneils 18:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bandorbon and Korpos Mohol indicate they're parts of the Chittagong area, a major metropolitan area of Bangladesh. This is not nonsense; it just needs explanation and wikification. However, no evidence of notability is in these substubs. Probably these articles were the first contribution of a new user (anonymous 194.199.119.17); Please don't bite the newbies. 209.2.145.49 01:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that, I suggest Expand or delete. In any language, place names are notable only if the places are shown to have encyclopedic notability. 209.2.145.49 01:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The above two items were mine; I wasn't logged in, sorry. Barno 01:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If they are different words for the same place, they should all be redirected to whichever is most common. Kappa 01:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, stubby article does not establish notability. Megan1967 07:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • also dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable geographic term. The Changma (also spelled Chakma) are a Buddhist minority in Bangladesh. What they call the region where they live is important enough for an article. The stuff about "Bandorbon (Bandarban)" and "KORPOS MOHOL (KARPAS MAHAL)" is probably an artifact of the irregular mapping of Bengali vowels into the Roman alphabet. At present this article and the related ones are substubs but there is certainly a lot to say, so leave them be. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There are relatively few wikipedians who will cleanup and expand such articles done by annoyomous newbies. If you keep this article, who will cleanup these articles? I think that it should be deleted, but let people rewrite the article with the condition that he does not write such content anymore. Mr Tan 21:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:39, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

How to be a spy

[edit]

Dubious recruitment guide for the Central Intelligence Agency. The "requirments" for a CIA internship include a "Strong acedemic record," "Outstanding impersonal skills" and "The ability to write accuratley and clearly." This article was probably created by a well-meaning kid: if you're reading this, take a look at well-made existing Wikipedia articles - there are always lots linked from the Main page - and try to write like them, and don't give your articles the sort of titles you wouldn't find in an encyclopedia, like the World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. Samaritan 18:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • ... or the CIA World Factbook? ☺ Nothing verifiable to merge here. Delete. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. JoaoRicardo 19:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad clumsily copied from CIA recruiting material. Gazpacho 21:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 01:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an article, copy-pasted want-ad for spies, agreed this was prolly authored by a (male) teen. Wyss 21:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV, and also only refers to the CIA... there are at least a dozen spy agencies in the USA alone

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

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

Bandorbon

[edit]

Tagged by Mr Tan, but not put on VFD or sub-page created--procedural. 19 hits. Part of the Arvumi series (above). Niteowlneils 19:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, stubby article does not establish notability, dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inept dicdef with zero context. Wyss 20:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important geographic region of Bangladesh. 9900 Google hits for alternate spelling "Bandarban". Wile E. Heresiarch 07:59, 9 Feb 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. Rje 23:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Eli Hagen

[edit]

Politicians' spouses are only notable in exceptional circumstances (such as if their horoscopes influence the foreign policy of a country, say). These aren't such circumstances. Uncle G 19:27, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

  • "wife and secretary"... second wife, I have to wonder? *sigh* Samaritan 20:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Politicians' spouses can be encyclopedic, simply for being famous due to their association with their spouse (e.g., Lady Bird Johnson). In practice, that pretty much limits it to the spouses of Presidents/PMs/Dictators-for-life. She might be notable, if she has received sufficient media attention, but if she had, you'd think the article would provide more detail. Delete unless notability shown. Meelar (talk) 02:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • The spouse of a nation's president or prime minister or other national leader is legitimately notable, because that inherently puts them in a fairly senior public role. The spouse of a political party leader who isn't a PM/president/whatever, however, should only be in here if they're notable in their own right. If she can be shown to be notable on her own, keep; if not, delete. I can't tell from a Google search, since most relevant pages are written in Norwegian. Bearcat 07:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is an Eli Hagen who also listed as a published linguistics researcher. Not sure at this stage if she is the same one. No vote as yet. Megan1967 07:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • More Googling does show up some notability. Voting Keep with expansion. Megan1967 00:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess I have to say keep now. Gee, I just wasted 30 minutes of my life looking up information on this woman and summarizing it. Please take another look at the article now and tell if it is redeemable. Eli Hagen is married to the right-wing populist Carl I. Hagen. From a quick look at what Google brings up, it appears that she is notorious in Norway for accidentally driving her car down the monumental stairs in front of the Royal Palace in Oslo a few years ago, and there are references in Norwegian press to people "doing an Eli Hagen", i.e. driving down those (or other) stairs. She was subsequently featured in an advertizing campaign on road safety in Norway. / up land 09:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, content is helpful, could use a mild cleanup though. Wyss 20:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. She seems notable enough to me, and this article is currently probably the best source of information about her anywhere (except talking with her, perhaps). LizardWizard 21:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hokay, after hedging my bets in my earlier comment on this, I'm now in favour of keeping, although only weakly. Bearcat 00:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For me, this is a positive example of Wiki is not paper... Wyss 00:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep thanks to the good work of Uppland. hopefully, I will work on an article on Royal Palace in Oslo. Capitalistroadster 10:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since she is a public figure. Some may claim this is due to her hair-do and recently, the Royal Castle stairs affair. More importantly, claims have been made that she has played an important role in the development of her husbands party, which is noteworthy, especially since in recent years the party has become the largest in Norway. Sorry, but that is what I know. Egil 13:32, 9 Feb 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. Rje 23:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fathers' rights

[edit]

This article is a lengthly non-NPOV screed (carefully couched so as to appear neutral) in support of a particular British antifeminist movement. The primary authors of the article have a history of reverting changes made with the intent of neutralizing the non-NPOV content. I see no hope that this article can easily be reduced to a form that will pass for NPOV, or that the individuals who are responsible for this state of affair will cease their non-NPOV-introducing edits. Hence, I recommend the deletion of this article. —Kelly Martin 19:54, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

If 'anti-feminist' means oppossing the view that children are women's property to do with as they please regardless of the father's wishes, then I am most definitely anti-feminist, but I haven't heard any feminist spokespeople express this view, presumably because they would in their hearts be ashamed to, though there are women in the family courts every day who actions support that view exactly. Matt Stan 07:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If the wording is so carefully couched as to appear neutral then how can one reasonably claim that it is not, and surely one needs to cite some evidence to support that view? And what can one do about text that is believed by some not to be neutral but appears so? Perhaps we have a new category of problem in wikipedia, something which is in fact expressed in NPOV terms that accord with wikipedia's policies but which some readers find offensive because it calls into question their deeply held prejudices. All I would say to them is, don't read it then, and go somewhere else where you can preserve your prejudices and ignorance intact, OK? Matt Stan 07:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They read your mind. They can see that your secret intention is to be non-NPOV. Therefore the text must be non-NPOV despite the lack of evidence. Paul Beardsell 19:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see evidence of any reversions and who is alleged to be doing it. I've generally only added to the article, and corrected anomic contributions. Anything I delete, I put up on the talk page. I haven't noticed anyone else doing systematic reversions, and I have been a contributing to this page for a while. Matt Stan 23:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Author ought to be ashamed of himself for refusing to compromise or seek consensus; he instead insists that anyone who disagrees with what he's saying is simply 'uninformed'. Delete for reasons above. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I say that anyone who disagrees that I am informed is probably uninformed, unless of course they are better informed, in which case obviously I will yield. Matt Stan 21:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I sympathize with Kelly Martin & Fennec's exposition of the problem. However, the "fathers' rights" movement is a highly notable topic internationally, and Wikipedia articles are never just the product of one "author", but of the community. Revert POV edits back; if an editor violates the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, they are subject to blocking. There are other options for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Page protection, etc. Has everything been tried? Samaritan 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Samaritan. Spinboy 20:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Samaritan said. ElBenevolente 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan is channeling my thoughts. However, this article needs some serious cleanup. Just about every other sentence is an unsourced POV, making the article more of a rant than anything else. --Plek 21:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the topic itself might be notable, but this article does not cover any of it. If you removed all the non-NPOV content, there would be nothing left. Perhaps I should simply replace the entire screed with a brief stub? —Kelly Martin 21:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The notable absence of any particular bits being cited as POV continues. Matt Stan 21:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely notable subject. Nominator deserves censure.--Centauri 21:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. VfD is not cleanup. GRider\talk 21:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This is a strongly POV article with an unproductive editing process. Nonetheless, it is a notable topic. I suggest that Kelly Martin or other editors go forward with removing the considerable amount of un-referenced and POV material. It sounds like the real problem may be the originatig editor, rahter than the topic itself. -Willmcw 23:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Centauri, though the article clearly needs cleaning up (and possibly paring down). --Angr 23:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Shouldn't be deleted for POV problems any more than an abortion or Israeli-Palestinian article Philip 01:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable topic in several different contexts. POV problems should be worked out through normal means. The topic and title are not themselves inherently biased. Comment: I object strongly to Centauri's crack about censuring the nominator. While I disagree with the nominator, the nomination was politely worded and fact-based. This was an allowable question to put before the community. Rossami (talk) 01:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only if the article is almost entirely rewritten. As it stands, the article is hopelessly biased, and unworthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. However the topic is important, and it would be nice to see an article that talked about the "Father's rights" movement as a particular reaction on the part of some British men to feminism. As it is, it's extremely parochical, assuming that the world revolves around the UK and is essentially just a rather tiresome tract for this movement. If the article is not fundamentally re-written, Strong Delete though this would be unfortunate, as the topic itself is a good one for an article in the Wikipedia.Zantastik 02:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs TLC. -Sean Curtin 03:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if cleaned up. Agree with Samaritan, Sean Curtain, Plek, and particularly Zantastik, but especially with Rossami. This page (VfD) used to be mostly civil, with only the occasional flare-up. The last few months it seems to have almost daily personal attacks. Niteowlneils 04:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has serious POV issues, and some editors have difficulty abiding by the personal attacks policy. Nevertheless, these are best addressed through reasoned discussion, requests for comment, peer review, and {{cleanup}}, not outright deletion. The topic is valid and important, and wiping the article would just invite an edit war 'land grab'. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, but censure all of the people above who feel the need to attack other people's motives in making VfD listings. RickK 06:15, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ComCat.
  • Delete POV tirade. If cleaned up I cant see anything more than a stub out of this. PS I'm not a feminist either. Megan1967 07:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Overwhelmingly extreme keep. —RaD Man (talk) 08:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. The rights of fathers in divorce cases is a topical issue in many countries including the UK and Australia. We should make sure that the article is NPOV but we should follow the appropriate procedures. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content reflects my knowledge of the topic and is balanced and fair. To censor such an article would be reminiscent of Nazi book-burning. Kittybrewster
  • Keep. LY 16:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The critics should contribute, not censor. Paul Beardsell 19:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, watch the PoV (personally I think 90% of this issue is anti-feminist codswallop but WP has an article on Creationism too). Wyss 20:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, but it needs an extreme cleanup to remove POV and original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This very accurately reflects my knowledge having progressed through this system in an ultimately unsucessful attempt to maintain a relationship that can only be to my children's benefit. Just because the predominant viewpoint is that the system is unfair to fathers(and therefore children), doesn't necessarily make it anti feminist. Fathers going through this process generally only want equality of care and status with the mothers, surely feminism is about equality, not the superiority of women over men? --DanDav 22:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I am very interested that perhaps one or several of the detractors, whom a UK Appeal Court judge has recently referred to as a "small group of obdurate women", might have surfaced in wikipedia, ostensibly on a NPOV tirade, though at least one of them has demanded the removal of all the facts from the article and no one here or elsewhere has identified specifically what it is about my and others' writings here that they find objectionable on whatever grounds. (I can only conclude they don't like my up-front style, which is why I maintain this is an ad hominem attack, rather than a genuine NPOV argument.) That is a pity, as I was hoping to hear expressed a reasoned set of counter-arguments to the fathers' rights cause. I imagine if anyone were to consult the leading sisters in the womens' movement they would be told to keep quiet and just hope that outlets like wikipedia don't get wide enough exposure to contribute significantly to the downfall of their, it can be reasoned, hitherto quite powerful clique. Has it not occurred to you that what is written in the article just might all be true, regardless of whether you like the people who wrote it? Matt Stan 07:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • KeepI agree, and I would like to warn people that it is ok if the Father's rights movement is anti-feminanist in so far that it seems, from their perspective, feminism is not about equality but in many cases becoming about promoting women at the cost of men's rights SO LONG as the article states that this is what these groups SAY/THINK, then that is NPOV. --ShaunMacPherson 17:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Shaun, I think you have misinterpreted the "anti-feminism" argument I have made in my earlier comments. My view is that the movement can only be regarded as anti-feminist if feminism is NOT about equality between men and women. If feminism is only about this equality, then the fathers rights movement cannot be said to be anti-feminist as fathers are seeking only equality in care & status with mothers when it comes to their parenting. I hope this makes this clearer? --DanDav 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This article will always hold some bias to a degree. Longhair 07:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

American Trailer Exchange

[edit]

Seems to be a fairly average local (Atlanta, Georgia) used truck dealer--less than 20 years old, with all of 6 employees. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Niteowlneils 20:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Well-done, but an ad. Delete. Samaritan 20:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Nice try. Inter 20:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if possible. Blatant ad. Advertising is expensive. Why give five days of freebies? - Lucky 6.9 21:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Because advertising isn't considered a candidate for speedy deletion. I've been known to NPOV ads while they're in VfD, however. Sometimes the result of removing the peacock words from a promotional article can be quite amusing. This one is too factual for that though. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sigh...you are wise, O Smith. Just so long as it goes away. - Lucky 6.9 02:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Katefan0 22:58, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Philip 01:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as bad-faith spam. Dpbsmith's remarks about what can happen when an ad is unPoV'd are worth remembering, however. Wyss 20:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tux Bowl

[edit]

Software project that gets only hits on 3 sites, one of which is Wikipedia, probably because nothing's been released. Wikipedia is not a fortune-teller. Niteowlneils 20:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Come back when the product is mature and notable. Inter 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although it would be cool if Wikipedia was a fortune teller. GRider\talk 21:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yes, this would be an article if the project produces the software as described. Wyss 20:49, 8 Feb 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Farkas Bulkmeier

[edit]

Almost no info; nothing links to it; doesn't look like candidate for full article. Elf | Talk 21:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Somebody's replaced the Vfd tag with a Speedy tag, it's that bad. Three displayed hits. The current content reads as if one sentence from a lengthy and HIGHLY detailed article about absolutely everything known about the Power Rangers universe (canonnical or not) somehow fell off/out, and landed here. Niteowlneils 04:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Club Wow

[edit]

Non-notable band that apparenly only ever released one single[10]--no albums. 10 displayed hits for "Club Wow" secich, several of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Niteowlneils 21:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; one 7-inch is not a sufficient discography. --Idont Havaname 23:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible band vanity. Megan1967 07:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but for me it's close. Wyss 20:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lou Renner

[edit]

Vanity and non-notable. --Woohookitty 21:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google only gets 78 hits for "Lou Renner", most of whom don't seem to be this person. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:58, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like an interesting fellow, but he doesn't pass the Google test, as indicated already. --Idont Havaname 23:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable TigerShark 00:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It passed the Google Test for me when I checked it. [11] mentions a Lou Renner who creates topos that are posted at Pacific Edge climbing gymnasium and then posted in climbing magazines. [12] mentions a Lou Renner who is a "Santa Cruz climber" and who "makes his living running a successful guiding business and has an impressive record of FA's in the Alps and the Sierras". Both of these were in the very first page of Google Web results for the name. Holding a speed record for the ascent of the Jungfrau would appear to establish notablility. (It's a lot more notable than eating cheeseburgers, at any rate.) Keep. Uncle G 02:49, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • I created this entry. Given the concern about Lou's notability I have added more information to the page. I question the apparent Google notable test. It would tend to exclude those who have not spent the energy to make themselves known to the world. Lou is such a person. Keep'. DanielWenger
    • Note: This vote is user's first edit. Carrp | Talk 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Put very simply: An encyclopaedia is a compendium of knowledge. If something, or someone, isn't "known", then they don't belong. Uncle G 05:31, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 18:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I encourage you to contribute more, DanielWenger...but...Wikipedia is not here to make someone notable. Reference works are reflections of what is notable, not creators of notability. --Woohookitty 18:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, reads like an ad for a climbing guide. Wyss 20:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that a reference work is not meant to create a notable person. It is Lou's remarkable achievements that make him notable. The lack of reference to him on Google do not diminish from his accomplishments. I do believe that his history and record could be better presented. DanielWenger 00:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Then present them better. Cite your sources. Google is not the only reference that we accept. Far from it. But we get a vast amount of biographical articles making all sorts of hyperbolic, or even downright false, claims about people's achievements. We cannot simply take an article's word for it. You have added all of this information about the subject. Tell us, in the article, where you learned that information from. You must have learned it from somewhere. Uncle G 05:31, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  • Comment. A mountain-climber could be notable, of course. The only mountain-climber whose name I can think of is Edmund Hilary, but that probably only proves that I don't anything about mountain-climbing. What evidence is there that this person is famous in the world of mountain-climbers? --BM 01:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Monkey head monkies

[edit]

Beyond needing cleanup, I don't think this person is notable enough for inclusion, and therefore does not have the potential to become encyclopedic. Google only reveals a handful of hits, mostly local links. Katefan0 21:54, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an article about an art work by the Atlanta artist, Cooper Sanchez. He gets about 100 to 200 hits on Google. I don't think the artist is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, never mind an article about one of his pieces. While some art pieces are notable enough in themselves and there is enough verifiable information about them to warrant an article, I think most art works should be covered in the article about the artist who created them. If Wikipedia ever has an article about Cooper Sanchez (but I don't think it should, at present), it might mention this work. --BM 16:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this self-promotion. Wyss 20:43, 8 Feb 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.

The votes were 2 delete, 2 keep, 3 redirect. dbenbenn | talk 18:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The-n

[edit]

Not notable - no potential to become encyclopedic JoJan 22:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Prime time programming block on the American cable network Noggin. Distinct from the rest of Noggin programming in that it is for preteens and teens as opposed to preschoolers. There's considerable potential for it to become encyclopedic, which it has, but under the title The-N. Redirect there. (Btw, other cable programming blocks with articles that come to mind: The Zone on YTV, Nick at Nite on Nickelodeon.) Samaritan 22:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Might as well keep as it's pretty much the same sort of thing as Nick at Nite and that has an entry. Also seems reasonable that this could be searched for. Compared to other forms of culture (movies and music in particular) television doesn't seem to keep its own history very well, so TV history articles are particularly valuable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, nothing to merge. -Sean Curtin 03:15, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, nothing really left here to merge. Megan1967 07:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild keep, harmless, possibly helpful to someone. Wyss 20:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, all content already in The-N. -- user:zanimum

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mound Royal, Mississippi

[edit]

Prank or something--maps.yahoo.com can't find it, and the only google hit is a Wikipedia article that has been changed to Mound Bayou, Mississippi. That and Fannie Lou Hamer seem to cover those topics fine, so no merge should be needed. Website in article just has an 'under construction' message. Niteowlneils 01:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I forgot to add this to the main VfD page back when I tagged it. Niteowlneils 22:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit, possible hoax, website advertisement. Megan1967 07:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense hoax. GRider\talk 17:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism etc. Wyss 20:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Zenichi Shimbashi

[edit]

This article was initiated by an anonymous user with a history of vandalism. KF requested verification on 14 Dec but has received no response. A google search returns only ambiguous evidence that this person even existed (all hits appearing to be derivative of the Wikipedia article on Japanese Canadians). Delete unless the contents of this article can be verified. Rossami (talk) 23:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep Seems to have existed and been slightly notable as a "well-known Japanese Canadian" TigerShark 00:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete only Google mentions seem to be from Wikipedia mirrors or Wkipedia-sourced articles. Based on Rossami's assertions, assume likely hoax. Even if not hoax, seems well beyond any reasonable notability criteria. Joining the army and growing fruit doesn't equal notability. (this was me, for some reason wasn't logged in) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. LizardWizard 00:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 07:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing about this content is encyclopedic and the writing tone indicates a possible hoax or rant. Wyss 20:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spinboy 22:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable outside evidence of his existence, and notability in the Japanese Canadian community, is found. Samaritan 13:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Claire Gillete Lane

[edit]

Mis-spelled and mis-named, this is a reference to Claire Gillette Lane who was a distant relative by marriage to Laura Ingalls Wilder. He is not notable in himself. Dbiv 23:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The husband of the daughter of a notable person, who appears to have no notability in his own right. I've reverted the (somewhat incomprehensible) addition to Laura Ingalls Wilder that pointed here. Delete. Uncle G 00:29, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, content belongs in the main article, obviously. Wyss 20:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The article has been tagged as "pending deletion" because of a block-compression error. Joyous 04:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Advisor Media

[edit]

This company appears to be a mom-and-pop operation run by two unknown people and thus not encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Katefan0 23:50, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, ad. Wyss 20:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mooshnai

[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, and/or prank. Zero hits for Mooshnai and zero hits for "Darq Saga". Orphan, and sole contrib of an anon, so unlikely to get any further info or references. Niteowlneils 04:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. Well-detailed, but a hoax. - Lucky 6.9 17:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP not the place for fiction, however well-written. Wyss 20:28, 8 Feb 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_February_7&oldid=1142647891"