This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 --cesarb 00:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Neologism. --Durin 00:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedy. Doesn't even give a definition! Academic Challenger 00:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it originated from an MMO for crying out loud. It does however give a description, in that it says it's a misspelling of awesome. So it's probably like the "pwned" ("owned") misspelling, but has a FAR smaller spectrum. Or, at least, I've seen pwned endless times on gaming sites, but I've never seen Aswom. Master Thief Garrett 00:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Over a span of half an hour shortly after the article was created, various IPs vandalized the page, resulting in 12 reverts. The article was listed on speedy deletions, and was then deleted. It was re-created by one of the earlier culprit IPs. --Durin 02:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Good gravy! Can't we ever end this mess? Guess it'll have to be speedy deleted all over again... or maybe even edit-locked or something... Master Thief Garrett 02:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 02:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of similarities between Canada and New Zealand

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google returns a whopping 21 hits, half of which are definitely not a match for this Uncle Sam of Spain. For comparison, "Uncle Sam" returns 1.75 million. This just isn't notable. --Durin 00:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete/Merge, maybe put him as a Trivia note under Uncle Sam? Master Thief Garrett 05:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ask a Spaniard. Pavel Vozenilek 09:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• but we'd not only need a Spaniard but also one who knows their own pop culture. So really you can't trust a single person. Or was your comment intended to be humourous? If so then I missed the joke, sorry. Master Thief Garrett 09:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm inclined to agree on the notability and verifiability issue of this. Megan1967 06:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Mother Germania? Sorry. JHMM13 01:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• This seems to be real. See this rather scholarly article about the German Michel (I'm directing to the cache because the version up now has been oddly abbreviated), where "Juan el Español" is mentioned briefly at the end. I can't seem to find any more information, though.--Pharos 08:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Blankfaze (patent nonsense) --cesarb 00:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Neologism. --Durin 01:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense. Speedy-deleted. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't find any criteria to speedy this. It's an obvious case of unabashed (but cute) vanity. Delete and soon. --Dmcdevit 01:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (Or userify if auto-biographical.) Niteowlneils 02:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established, vanity. Megan1967 02:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm beginning to think we need to launch "Wikiography" for all these non-notable people who keep popping up. Master Thief Garrett 05:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'll have you know, my brother is a very notable person. He's probably done a lot more than any of you fools. 198.82.120.153 05:56, 2005 Apr 23 (according to history Uncle G 13:15, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC))
  • Indeed, he probably has, but we have to decide upon a minimum notability. This is a very well written article, definitely of school yearbook quality. I know you love your brother and all, but he's no George Bush. And then you go on to list future predictions ("Wikipedia is not a crystal ball") and that's just not allowed.
  • And, as an aside, please please please do not say intentionally offensive things towards other Wikipedians, or your stay with us may turn out to be unexpectedly short. Master Thief Garrett 06:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No threats. Everyking 07:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • ooops, it wasn't meant to be! Yes it does sound like one though... ooops... Master Thief Garrett 08:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Your brother has a better chance than over 99% of Americans of actually becoming President someday. Bravo! If and when he distinguishes himself as a notable officeholder or figure in his own name, when there's a broad constituency out there that knows and recognizes voted for David Dailey – in the speculative future timeline provided, probably when he's a Commonwealth Attorney and "prominent figure in local politics," certainly at least when he's "elected Mayor of Norfolk in a landslide," it'll be time for his Wikipedia article. Alas, it isn't now. Delete, but to the author, save this somewhere else though – it's sweet. Samaritan 12:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• An article from PrezDave99 whose second half tells us that the subject "was" Governor of Virginia in 2025 and President of the United States in 2032. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The first half of the article, that isn't utter fiction, tells us, in stark contrast, that this person has worked for IHOP (for a month) and for Starbucks. The edit summaries all tell us that this person is an "Average Guy". Average guys don't meet our criteria for inclusion of biographies. Given the user's account name, I'd vote Userfy, were it not for the fact that PrezDave99 has made no other contributions at all. As for rewrites: David Dailey the associate mathematics professor doesn't appear to pass the Average Professor test, David Dailey the settler didn't do much of note, David Dailey the author hasn't published a book of his own, and David Dailey the convicted criminal ... isn't President of the United States either. My vote is therefore Delete. Uncle G 13:15, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

This could be David Dailey's future, if he doesn't have a heart attack by the age of 27 from all the fast food!!!! ;) natrllytan

• Userify. If it's autobiographical, it should be preserved, as well-written; but moved where it belongs. If it's not autobiographical, PrezDave99 is free to edit for content. Septentrionalis 22:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'm thinking of voting for him anyway. What a stand-up guy!--Pharos 07:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Our hearts truly go out to everyone who knew this guy, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 01:45, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Wish it could be speedied. Vanity/Memorial/Non-Notable, delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am sorry for this person's loss, but delete. --Sn0wflake 01:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 02:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry, but, no, not a memorial... Master Thief Garrett 07:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Sorry, buddy. But not only has May 2005 not happened yet, but this isn't www.wikimorial.org. JHMM13 01:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unwikified article written in first person about a foundation of small notability. An advertisement to some extent. Delete. --Sn0wflake 01:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established, promo. Megan1967 02:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh look, a free ad-space! I'm very sorry, but Wikipedia isn't your public billboard. Master Thief Garrett 07:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, When this gets a little bigger (and therefore more annoying based on the description of the organization), maybe someone other than someone who works there will post an article on it. JHMM13 01:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable and/or prank fiction. "Pokemon moon" gets mostly porn sites, "Pokemon moon" Tadoil gets zero hits. Niteowlneils 02:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: it says (on an earlier edit) that this is a computer game. A computer game?!? In all their 20+ years of operation Nintendo has NEVER made a single computer game, let alone a game for a platform not directly produced by them, and if they did branch out into PC gaming it would be VERY newsworthy. So that makes it all the more unlikely. Master Thief Garrett 07:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified--somehow, I doubt it will, though. Meelar (talk) 02:22, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 02:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fake. I can't find "Pokemon Moon" on any gaming sites. Also, Googling those supposed Pokemon names gets nowhere, and if they were real they'd be plastered all over the fansites' news pages. Master Thief Garrett 07:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks false, would definitely be notable if true, however. Everyking 07:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Jshadias 11:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's fake. Either that or a fanproject which, while I'd be interested in it, doesn't belong here. Ketsy 22:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. This game exists only in the author's imagination; Nintendo's next Pokemon games are Diamond and Pearl. A Man In Black 13:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, JHMM13 01:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Catholic high school in Ireland with a BEEFSTEW score of 0. At present, my VfD summary's longer than the actual article. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 02:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The BEEFSTEW score's gone up to 3. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, should be given longer than 3 minutes to try and accumulate some BEEFSTEW. Kappa 02:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Withdraw vote, I googled this and couldn't find enough to make an interesting article, will change my mind if anyone else wants to try. Kappa 11:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My vote goes back to keep because of GRider's efforts. Failing keep, it should be merged with Blackrock. Kappa 23:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Per Kappa's comment, I will reserve voting until 48 hours from this posting, then vote based on what's there. -- 8^D ^gab 04:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Provisional Keep If the article expands at all. Klonimus 05:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Public insititution. Existence verified. --Centauri 05:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very short articles with little or no context What makes that school encyclopedic? Vegaswikian 06:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, absence of claim/evidence of notability. Everyking 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, ?vanity? ?(wordhere)cruft?, etc. Master Thief Garrett 10:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Account User:Master Thief Garrett was created 2 weeks ago. Welcome to Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 08:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Blackrock. Average Earthman 11:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there was anything of substance to add, it could have been by now. -- 8^D ^gab 06:39, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
• Merge into Blackrock and delete - Skysmith 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I trust Kappa's skills in finding notability and if he doesn't find any, there probably isn't any. Radiant_* 10:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, eternal substub. Korath (Talk) 14:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep because it is notable plus our founder thinks so too [1] Yuckfoo 00:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Somehow I failed to find the words notable or Clonkeen College in that over-quoted text. Am I just missing them? Indrian 04:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I realize some people browse at very, very low resolution, but I fail to see how "Clonkeen College is a non-fee paying Christian Brothers secondary school in Blackrock, Co. Dublin."—that's the article's full content—is a decent, verifiable, well-cited, two page article like the sort we should be accommodating. In fact, it rather looks like "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US", which that poor abused year-and-a-half old mailing list post says should be mass-deleted. —Korath (Talk) 08:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 04:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• The article has been expanded but not in a way that I consider significant. (They have sports teams. What high school doesn't? They have alumni but none of the alumni are sufficiently notable to already have an article.) This is still a delete. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently Glenn Quinn was misspelled the first time— the famous and now deceased Irish actor does have an article. —RaD Man (talk) 07:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's made some serious improvements since being added to GRider's Schoolwatch and will undoubtedly improve. Can someone BEEFSTEW this? —RaD Man (talk) 06:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks to be about a three to me. "Serious improvements" is quite a reach. A founding date, a list of sports, and three alumni would be a minor improvement in my book. Indrian 06:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Its gone from uninformative substub with a BEEFSTEW of 0 to a score of 3. There is no point in debating the seriousness of the improvements made so far. —RaD Man (talk) 06:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, not interesting. The JPS 19:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Isn't the precedent set by Sunset High School (Portland) to keep high schools? Kingturtle 07:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, there is no consensus or policy. Some get kept, some get deleted, often determined by who took a wikibreak any given week. Indrian 07:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 07:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability still not established. Jonathunder 08:48, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Keep, what is the policy on these? Maggie311 09:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Currently there is no official policy, but there is a lot of fighting, you may want to look at some other current school Vfds. Some people propose schools articles could be merged until/unless they reach a certain size and informativeness. See also WP:BEEFSTEW, a widely used measure. Kappa 09:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Grue 18:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep passes the pokemon comparativity notability test. ;)  ALKIVAR™ 02:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, classic encyclopedia article --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles about schools belong in Wikipedia --Zantastik 19:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable self-promotion. This guy gets less than 10 Google hits and doesn't appear to have done anything notable. delete. Avocado 02:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I took the liberty of completing this nomination by Avocado to vfd. Delete on the grounds of notability. JamesBurns 03:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, what did I miss? If you let me know I'll try to get it right in the future. (I'm still a bit new around here). Thanks for your help! Avocado 13:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are three Vfd steps, you must complete them all and complete them correctly, or it doesn't show up for voting. But you did quite well, my first time I only remembered to do the first step! Master Thief Garrett 01:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I think I can handle that! Thanks for being patient with a n00b. -- Avocado 22:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • The only step that was missed was clicking on the link "Add new VfD section" on the main VfD page to add the entry otherwise everything else was okay. JamesBurns 03:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Good thing you finished the nomination for him, undoubtedly an oversight, and this article might have stagnated here for months otherwise. Master Thief Garrett 06:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ugh, gushing vanity. Merely being employed by any university doesn't qualify someone for an article. Average Earthman 10:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre (Libel page/prank) --cesarb 00:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article appears to have been created by a vandal by copying Dean Corll and changing the names and dates. I haven't been able to find a "Brian Phillips" who was a serial killer, and the editor's only other recent contribution was to vandalize the Pope article. Bryan 04:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an attack page. Samaritan 04:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as above. Master Thief Garrett 06:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. It gives a date in 2008 for the death...
• Speedy My friend did this and it's nonsense. CtrlPhreak 16:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I tagged the article with an explanation of why this should be done. Firebug 17:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 07:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advert and not at all notible. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep and NPOV the article. "20% of school districts across the US have subscribed to their service." I am not sure about the validity of their statistics but Google gives 70,000 matches for the search term. - Stoph 04:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and cleanup. Appears notable enough. Megan1967 06:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I actually agree that it ought to be kept now. I was too hasty in proposing it. Stoph and Megan make good points. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. this should never have been nominated. Kingturtle 07:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, I agree iwth Kingturtle again. Maggie311 09:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic (Unanimous speedy decision on VFD; this article appears to have been created by a vandal who simply copied the text of Robert Ressler and search-and-replaced the name.) --cesarb 00:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article appears to have been created by a vandal who simply copied the text of Robert Ressler and search-and-replaced the name. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brian Phillips, done by the same guy and linking to this article. Bryan 04:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. Given the factual, verifiable that Robert Ressler lived this exact life in these same places at the same times, I think to say that Andy Triboletti did too is nonsensical. Samaritan 04:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy! as above. Master Thief Garrett 06:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as with above, same friend doing bad work CtrlPhreak 16:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I'm totally perplexed by this article, but I think it's just nonsense. —Seselwa 04:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Entire text is "Someone who abuses their power, a dictator. Someone who has no sence of humour. Someone who dreams of commanding over a totalitarian state." No inbound wikilinks. The very few google hits for Krossinc prominently include webboard members; this sounds like an attack against one of them. Delete or speedy delete as no-context/attack page. Samaritan 05:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. No context, bordering on patent nonsense. android↔talk 05:17, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. No content, bordering on patent nonsense. And even if this was a real term, it's right now a mere dicdef and still doesn't belong here! Master Thief Garrett 06:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—looks like a vanity page for a certain someone. Everyking 07:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know that this article is of value here, so I'm putting it here to see what the Wiki community thinks. Potentially POV and vanity, but I'm not sure, and it doesn't bear the telltale "we"/"us"/etc. that most self-written vanity sections have. Master Thief Garrett 05:06, 2005 Apr 23 (according to history Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC))

• Delete unless it can be made encyclopedic, but I don't really see how. Vegaswikian 06:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I read the latest changes and my previous position is basically unchanged. Drop the last part and you have a wikitonary entry not a wikipedia one. The disambig suggested below somehow needs to be addressed. Vegaswikian 05:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A Greek Fest is a festival attended by Greeks, amongst others. Apart from telling us where it is held, this article tells us nothing about the festival at all. This article comprises no more, and indeed somewhat less, than what one would find on a paper flyer pinned at the roadside advertizing such a festival. Burning Man this isn't. It's not even Saint Sophia's Greek Fest, The Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church's annual Greek Fest, the Charleston Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity Greek Fest or (saving the domain name owner until last) the Greek Orthodox Community of St. George's GreekFest. As it currently stands, Delete. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

  Don't those links and others like them suggest that there's something to have an article about?

yeah I sort of also don't understand the logic behind using those links as evidence of NOT keeping it... they are just the opposite, evidence that the article should stay and be expanded Argyrios Saccopoulos 04:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gazpacho 03:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or disambig between frat party and Greek culture festival, neither of which probably exists. --SPUI (talk) 15:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at Greek festival. Orthodox churches all over the US have annual Greek Fests, and call them that. Gazpacho 19:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, replace with redirect to festival. Radiant_* 10:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect it maybe that sounds ok Yuckfoo 00:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to what? Kingturtle 07:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So what if it is a stub now. give it time. Kingturtle 07:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep again. This happens alot? Maggie311 09:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Why you gotta hate on the Greeks? Seriously though, I've been to a couple of these and there is no excuse for deleting such an article, even if it is a stub atm. Argyrios Saccopoulos 18:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep It's encyclopedic. STUBS SHOULD NOT BE DELETED BUT EXPANDED. --Eleassar777 22:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because his dad is notable doesn't mean that he is. Merge? Grutness|^hello? 06:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)As rewritten, I change my original nomination to a keep. looks much more reasonable now. Grutness|^hello? 12:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I'd say. I mean, unless he did anything major of his own accord, why talk about him? Does the George Bush Jr. article talk about his non-noteworthy siblings/children? No. If anything, Mrs. Opel would be more noteworthy... Master Thief Garrett 06:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep as rewritten. Master Thief Garrett 06:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is now. If notable, someone will create good page. Pavel Vozenilek 09:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've rewritten. A quick Google search demonstrates that he is notable in his own right. His dad founded the company but Wilhelm is the one who got them making cars. (What was noteworthy about his wife? Please add it to the article.) FreplySpang (talk) 19:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • oops, nothing was notable about Mrs. Opel at all! I was just saying that as an example. If this man was non-noteworthy, then his mother would be *slightly* more noteworthy by being the Mrs. of a big man. Sorry if that was ambiguous. The rewrite is good, so I will change my vote. Master Thief Garrett 06:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Notable. Megan1967 06:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this now please Yuckfoo 00:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article as Notable. N-Man^talk 20:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable German carmaker. Well done, Freply Spang, for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 03:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I advise that people start copyediting articles BEFORE they nominate them to VfD. Kingturtle 07:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and I agree with KT. Maggie311 09:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 09:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

"poo-heads"? An unsigned (possibly made-up) band. Non notable/vanity. --Dmcdevit 06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Split up completely?!? Then you get deleted. Sorry bro, that's showbusiness for ya! Master Thief Garrett 09:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Unsigned, unencyclopedic, unneeded here. - Longhair | Talk 12:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No evidence supplied that the WP:NMG criteria are, or rather were, met. Delete. Uncle G 14:07, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha ha ha... (sigh). Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 01:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Comment: could you do Wikipedia a favor, and copyedit articles even if they are on VfD? Just because something is waiting to be deleted doesn't mean it shouldn't look nice during that wait. Kingturtle 07:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyedit...? Yes, but based on what?!? I couldn't find any Google hits. "Man with van" merely comes up with house-moving firms. Therefore, what data can possibly be added that isn't there already...? Other than a few typos, I cannot see anything to fix/expand... Master Thief Garrett 11:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, vanity. "Influential"? No. Delete. --Dmcdevit 06:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the "influential" line alone is POV. ?fancruft?, ?vanity?, etc. If anything, we'd have a page for Line 80 or whatever it was and him on it. Master Thief Garrett 09:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. let the stub grow. Kingturtle 07:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable band. I'm glad they're vegans but this is hardly encyclopedic. Delete. --Dmcdevit 07:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in the absence of any claim/evidence of notability. Everyking 07:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable, ?vanity?, ?fancruft?, etc. tags go here. Master Thief Garrett 09:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not meeting Notability and Music Guidelines Tuf-Kat 17:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What Tuf-Kat said. Dsmdgold 15:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Antimaniax retrieves over 7,000 hits. Kingturtle 07:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, Kingturtle is right. Maggie311 09:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep it seems important and isverifiable Yuckfoo 16:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be for real rather than vanity, but still only gets about 90 google hits once the versions of the wiki stub are removed. This either needs deletion or proof of notability (and subsequent article expansion). Grutness|^hello? 07:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy? Delete/Speedy Delete, as above. Strange, when I Googled it I only got 33 results, one of them the Wiki page! He seems to be a real person, but, um, not really noteworthy. Master Thief Garrett 07:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should explain - I got 90 for "Thomas Ladanyi"+Constitution after getting far fewer for "Thomas A Ladanyi". Grutness|^hello? 00:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, that makes sense now. But even so, still not noteworthy. Master Thief Garrett 01:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Blatant vanity. Definitely not encyclopedic. Delete. --Dmcdevit 07:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete internet user vanity. Sjakkalle 08:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NO forummer will EVER be worthy of their own page on WP, unless they are the handle for a notable person. Master Thief Garrett 08:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 12:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Created by same user as above. Not natable fan page. Alexa ranked 491,910. Delete --Dmcdevit 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy? or just plain Delete? Either way, sorry, but Wikipedia is not Google Directory. Master Thief Garrett 08:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ultra super speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 09:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Academic Challenger ((nonsense)) --cesarb 00:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's /b/tard nonsence. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 08:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedied as patent nonsense. Academic Challenger 08:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• delete. This page is poorly formatted and not written as an encyclopedia style article (i.e. neutral pov, provide knowledge rather than claims). However, some of the comments below are also a little unfair, or without support. I think if someone writes for example; "complete nonsense" they must give reasons why it is complete nonsense. Again, why does it sound like a "failed university essay" or "This is neither fringe theory nor nonsense, it's just what happens when someone thinks they understand advanced physics from reading "pop" sources".

In particular, this last statement above displays an alarming ignorance of the work of Dr Milo Wolff, who has had a distinguished career as a professor of Physics. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Wolff

It seems to me that the point of an encyclopedia is to present knowledge, not people's opinions, yet what i read below (see bottom of this page) seems to be opinions (they do not provide reasons for their criticisms). Having studied philosophy, physics and metaphysics for the past ten years, there is clearly a lot of historical knowledge that supports the Wave Structure of Matter, most particularly the foundations of philosophy and metaphysics (dating back to the Ancient Greeks and Indians) and their realisation of the dynamic unity of reality. The following quotes from Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant, Bradley, Brentano, Faraday, Maxwell, Nietzsche, Lorentz, Einstein, Schrodinger and Bohm are important in this debate;

"Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. And here we will have the science to study that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC)

"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity." (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)

"Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. … Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions." (Kant, Critique of Pure reason, 1781)

"We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole." (Bradley, 1846-1924)

"A three-dimensional (spatial) world is infinitely more likely than any of its alternatives." (Brentano, 1838-1916)

"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." (Faraday, 1830)

"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy." (James Clerk Maxwell, 1876)

"Greek philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition that water is the origin and mother-womb of all things. Is it really necessary to stop there and become serious? Yes, and for three reasons: firstly, because the preposition does enunciate something about the origin of things; secondly, because it does so without figure and fable; thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis state, the idea :everything is one. ..That which drove him (Thales) to this generalization was a metaphysical dogma, which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the ever renewed endeavors to express it better, we find in all philosophies- the proposition: everything is one!" (The Greeks' by Friedrich Nietzsche, p159)

"I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter." (Hendrik Lorentz, Theory of the Electron, 1900)

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time." (Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, Relativity, 1950)

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954)

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists." (Erwin Schrodinger) (Some of these quotes are from 'What is Life, unsure of rest.)

"The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it." (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

These people are not crackpots, they are some of the finest minds in the history of human knowledge, and they all recognised that the 'particle' conception of matter cannot describe physical reality (the current paradigm). However, there are crackpots out there that write on both the particle and the wave structure of matter (WSM), and I believe there have been some bad examples of this at wikipedia in the past relating to WSM. I hope over the next year to present a more balanced and well supported voice to this discussion, and to present knowledge to Humanity that clearly does explain and solve a lot of the current problems of modern physics philosophy and metaphysics founded on 'particles' and 'fields' in 'space-time'. Thus I am suggesting that this article be deleted, not because I have any problems with the Wave Structure of Matter, but because i don't think the article is of a suitable encyclopedia standard.

You can read my work at;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com (home page)

http://open-site.org/profiles/haselhurst.html (I am editor of physics and philosophy sections)

and discuss this with me on my discussion page at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haselhurst

or the WSM forum at;

http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/index.php

In ending, as i see things, it is important to realise that truth is not democratic. As Tolstoy wrote; "Wrong does not cease to be wrong simply because the majority share in it". Likewise, I am pleased to see that wikipedia is also not democratic. For knowledge to advance it must be founded on the accepted methods of Science (deduction from principles in harmony with knoweldge from senses), and a careful understanding of the history and evolution of knowledge (particularly the subjects of physics philosophy and metaphysics). As a philosopher I take this responsibility of correcting errors in human knowledge very seriously, and believe that wikipedia / encyclopedias play an important role in this process (as the famous french Encyclopedists, Diderot et al, realised).

I also realise that some people may claim that the WSM should not be permitted on wikipedia because it is 'original research'. However this is not the case. As above, this dynamic unity of reality (which the WSM explains) is an ancient idea that is central to all Science and the evolution of western knowledge from the renaissance on (with the introduction from Persia of the works of Aristotle, Plato, etc.).

I actually think that the main source of criticism is based on the natural human tendency to cling to existing ideas, no matter how absurd they become. As Galileo, Darwin and Planck wrote;

"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope." (Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two World Systems, 1600)

"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." (Charles Darwin, from 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Thomas Kuhn)

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography)

Sorry for such a long polemic (hope people find it as interesting as I do though!). But I think this discussion is important, and often there are no glib easy answers, it takes careful consideration based on substantial knowledge to make wise / just decisions (as i see things).

Sincerely,

Geoff Haselhurst Haselhurst 05:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

"And though the philosopher may live remote from business, the genius of philosophy, if carefully cultivated by several, must gradually diffuse itself throughout the whole society, and bestow a similar correctness on every art and calling." (David Hume, Treatise Concerning Morals and Human Understanding, 1737)

"It is the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations. ... and thus to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)

It's back again. Complete nonsense but there might be an informative article about a fringe theory hidden in there.Cutler 09:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "The Wave Structure of Matter by Milo Wolff, (M.I.T. retired)"? No offense to anyone, but it sounds like a failed university essay. And the point of Wikipedia is to release your info; this guy's branded it so it's his and any edits to it would be corrupting his creation. So, no, it has to go I guess. Again, apparently! Master Thief Garrett 09:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because of so poor quality. If it gets better, label with the same category as Time Cube. Pavel Vozenilek 09:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If this is what was discussed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Theory of Everything then Speedy delete under criterion G4. If it isn't, then Delete as original research. Uncle G 14:14, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete. This is neither fringe theory nor nonsense, it's just what happens when someone thinks they understand advanced physics from reading "pop" sources. Gazpacho 20:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research/essay, misses references (but has numbers. Misformatted, self-referential and non-notable theory. Mgm|^(talk) 21:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Josh Cherry 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As a recreate can't it be speedy deleted? - Tεxτurε 20:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep moink 07:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seems that this isn't the same as the actor Bob Biniak, and if anything he should have precedent over the core namespace, but this guy doesn't seem very notable. Master Thief Garrett 09:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or replace it with an article about that actor - this is just a vanity article. andy 10:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just because you are not a skateboarder and do not know of him, does not mean that Bob Biniak is not notable. He was apart of an influential skateboarding team in the 1970's who redefined skateboarding as it is today. Even when you put the name Bob Biniak into IMDB, it comes up with the skateboarder over any supposed actor by the same name. As you can see: Bob Biniak IMDB profile whilst looking at the names list for Biniak doesn't even turn up this supposed actor either: IMDB names page for Biniak. I suggest if you submit something for deletion, you actually know what the article you're deleting is. And if the persons name is supposedly the same as someone elses, make sure you get the other persons name right before saying 'it takes precedent'. Or if this person exists, then you put Bob Biniak (actor). Lordhart 10:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First off, the matter of precedence. It's always the most important person who takes the namespace on WP. Always. Look at George Clooney. There is no other, so it doesn't say "actor" beside, nor would it if there was another. It is always the less important same-name person who would be shoved aside, not the more important one just because they are an actor.

I may not be a skater, but I'm not a movie buff either. 59% of WP content I've never heard of but it doesn't mean I automatically deem it unworthy since it hasn't reached my ears. I'm not predjudicing, I'm just basing it on Google. The very first Google hit is for a musician(?), the rest of the first ten for an actor, and it's not until the second page that I see a skater. Upon closer inspection, the actor references are to the same man.

—BUT this does NOT change the course of this Vfd! Notable or not, this article is written as fluff, and doesn't tell the reader anything useful at all. Indeed it is very vague and even confusing. When I first read this article, it gave NO impression that it was about a skater at all, because it lists surfing, golf, etc. just as frequently as skating, rather than showing that skating was the more important career (and indeed got him a movie role). It talks just as much about golf as anything else. Nothing in this jumped out at me and said "hey, this guy's a skater!", merely that he took part in many varied sports. No focus at all, merely bits and pieces. Classic fluff content right there.

It is written in a very fluffy, very vain way. ANY and ALL fluff articles should be Vfd'd as soon as they are noticed, whether they're about John Campbell or Paul Holmes, it doesn't matter. Fluff must go, whether it's about a noteworthy person or not. Either the content is revised or it is deleted, ready for someone else to recreate properly at a later date.

But if you wish to rewrite this article yourself to be less fluffy and more skatey (boy that sounds silly), please feel free to do so, and I will change my vote to Keep.

Anyway, you sound very angry about this being up for Vfd... which is just ridiculous! Come on, I'm merely trying to help make WP a better place, and even though I'm wrong, so what? Does it matter? Are you that offended that your skating idol has been put up for Vfd just because he's got a crappy article? If so, do your duty as a fan and rewrite it! Do him proud! Oh, and have a nice day... :) Master Thief Garrett 11:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clear up, i'm not a fan, and i'm not a skater, but I do know of certain skateboarders as my older brother was an avid skater in his youth. It seemed that your only reason for deletion was because the article didn't describe an actor (even though you've clearly stated now that you were wrong and that it is indeed this person). I'm not offended, but you should have labelled it to get extended or cleaned up if anything, not just deleted because you made a mistake with names or whatnot. I would edit it myself if I knew more about his life, but the most I know is that he was apart of the Dogtown Zephyr skate team of the 70's. Others who have more knowledge about him may have more to add though. Lordhart 15:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It does need to be cleaned up, yes, and there's a label that can be applied for that. It's not worthy of a deletion. jcomp489
  • ((cleanup)) is NOT why I brought it to Vfd. It's about the concept, not the content. Master Thief Garrett 00:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, reads like an ad or fake or something, so I'm giving the heads-up here for clarification! Master Thief Garrett 09:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Doesn't seem to be a fake... [2] --Edcolins 09:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's OK then. Still reads like an ad, but that can be rectified; my main concern was whether it actually existed or not. Someone could quite easily create a semi-obscure false town and it could lie dormant for many years... Master Thief Garrett 09:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

250 Google hits. Go figure. Charles Matthews

• Keep. The town is apparently real. Martg76 10:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clean up, time-wasting listing here. Charles Matthews 14:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real place, Charles, don't make attacks on well-meaning Users. RickK 22:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there a tag you can use if you're not sure if a place really exists? ((disputed)) maybe? Kappa 01:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • there's a tag, lemme dig it up... ah! ((fiction)), that's the one. It reads "This article does not make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Please edit it according to the guidelines regarding fiction." so that's the closest tag I know of. Nope, actually the wording of disputed is better, so use that where applicable. Master Thief Garrett 01:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. — JIP | Talk 04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to correct capitalization. Radiant_* 10:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up as Radiant suggests. Real place with community of interest. Capitalistroadster 04:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been informed that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints now consider the term "Mormon" to be a misnomer due to their beliefs, therefore Mormonite is similarly a no longer correct name; if anything, this should redirect. (nominated by Master Thief Garrett)

• Redirect to Mormon, which see. Gazpacho 11:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, redirect. Samaritan 11:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mormon, I might as well cast my own vote now. And yes I forgot to sign my nomination, ooops... Master Thief Garrett 12:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  If the redirect is OK with the nominator, then I might as well boldly redirect it now. Gazpacho 13:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  oops! I only just finished just as boldly reverting it as breaking the rules of the Vfd! oops! Ah well, I've re-reverted it now. Yes a redirect is fine by me. Master Thief Garrett 01:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism). Uncle G 14:18, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is this real? I'm just putting it here as a heads-up to see how real/relevant it is. Seems like someone's had fun with "-villa" and the Paste button to me... Master Thief Garrett 12:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Talks of a gang battle; possibly Urban Legend or other fiction/rumour? Master Thief Garrett 12:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say expand if they are a real and noteworthy gang, redirect if real but non-notable, delete if fiction/Urban Legend. Master Thief Garrett 12:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete, non-notable, accuracy debatable, and above all a copyvio. Master Thief Garrett 07:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio. I've listed it on the Copyright problems page. It seems real, but the http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/ganglandexpress/page3.html page seems strange -- at first I thought it was advertising some movie or something. But it seems to be a real page discussing LA gangs. RickK 22:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • A search for "White Fence gang" does find results outside of the dodginess of a user homepage, so they do exist, but even so it could be a complicated fictional work or just plain inaccurate... also of note is that the guestbook signing is supposed to be "about your hood" and people have signed with fake gang details, reminding me of the Grand Theft Auto role-plays I saw on GameFAQs... so it could just be backup info for an RP setting... Master Thief Garrett 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyright violation. Megan1967 06:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this band real? I can't really find anything via Google. Or is this page a misnomer? Master Thief Garrett 11:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: most of this data is already on That Thing You Do!, so is keeping both these semi-stubs redundant when they are virtually rewordings of each other? Master Thief Garrett 12:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no I don't believe they are real, they are the fictional band from the film 'That Thing You Do!'. They spent most of the film called The Oneders if I recall correctly. I also believe the track 'That Thing You Do' was written by a member of the band Fountains of Wayne. I've added the fiction template to the article, but I'm of the opinion that this is covered adequately in the article on the film already, and is unnecessary. Average Earthman 10:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah! Well then they should not be credited for the song, it should say something like "in the movie they wrote (blabla), composed by the real-world band (blabla)." But regardless of who wrote the song this entire topic is best covered on its own page... Master Thief Garrett 11:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (I was unsure so never cast my vote before, but Average Earthman's findings convinced me!) Master Thief Garrett 11:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Merge with That Thing You Do! core movie article, since they are very important in the movie, but probably not deserving enough of their own page. Master Thief Garrett 12:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep – as notable or more notable than any member of Category:Fictional musical groups. "They" had a genuine hit in 1996! I've added it to that category, clarified the fictional nature of the band, and expanded it a bit beyond a substub. Samaritan 12:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good rewrite!!! Heck, it's barely recognisable as being the same article!
    • I personally would have ALL the fictional music groups deleted. I doubt any of them are really of cult status, or, at least, deserving of their own individual page. Anyway, I've now re-cast my vote (above). Master Thief Garrett 12:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable fictional group with a genuine hit. Kappa 12:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already adequately covered elsewhere thus making this article unnecessary. Megan1967 12:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to That Thing You Do!. RickK 22:28, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to That Thing You Do!, as that's what the movie is about. WP:FICT, anyone? Radiant_* 10:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep not really supporting the move Yuckfoo 00:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meet Wikimusic Project guidelines (hit record, nominated for significant award) even if fictional. Capitalistroadster 04:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Fictional groups should be discussed in context with the fiction. That Thing You Do! still has plenty of room for this content. Rossami (talk) 01:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reads like a dicdef, BUT could it be expanded into a full article, or redirected somewhere? I'm not sure or I'd have speedy'd it... Master Thief Garrett 09:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect - there is already an article named Herbalism. There is also a re-direction link Herbal medicine which takes one to Herbalism. The term Botanical medicine conveys the same meaning as Herbal medicine. Actually, the term Herbal medicine is more in currency, in the part of the world where the term has originated. If delete is not justified, than a redirection link to Herbalism may also be considered, because a number of persons may feel more comfortable to use the term Botanical medicine as herbalism is not familiar in many part of the word.--Bhadani 14:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Bhadani. Redirect to Herbalism. RickK 22:30, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Herbalism as per above. Since it's a pseudonym, it shouldn't be deleted but redirected, so that if someone searches by this more obscure name they will still find the relevant article! Master Thief Garrett 22:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, synonymous with Herbal medicine (which in turn already redirects to Herbalism. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reads like a dicdef, BUT could it be expanded into a full article, or redirected somewhere? I'm not sure or I'd have speedy'd it... Master Thief Garrett 09:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, use stub tags for this. It causes stars to "twinkle" as well as producing some interesting effects at sunrise and sunset. Gazpacho 12:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, topic is encyclopedic and their is a bit more (albeit not much more) than a dicdef. Also, when nominating an article for deletion, you should not tag the edit as "minor". Sjakkalle 12:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • darn, I keep hitting the wrong checkbox... doh... Master Thief Garrett 12:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, keep. WP was founded on articles like this. Don't even think of speedies, and don't VfD them, please. Charles Matthews 13:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. This topic is perfectly valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. Megan1967 04:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Decumanus 07:14, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Keep. Edwardian 08:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if Expanded. Might as well vote myself now we've reached consensus... added Peer Review tag, it needs some professional help, but haven't completed the details yet... Master Thief Garrett 12:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As an instrumentalist in astronomy I am a little shocked by this deletion request. Construction of atmospheric refraction correctors for astronomical instruments (and the software to calculate atmospheric refraction effects) is one of the things that keeps us busy ;-) Rnt20 07:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this doesnt look like a speedy candidate `Yuckfoo
• Keep. This page has relevant information that people would find useful when searching for facts on the topic. Mystique 04:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete moink 07:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity, albeit well-formatted vanity --Theo (Talk) 09:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  The more that [User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] adds to this article, the more convinced I become that this person is not notable. Mayo's level of achievement is such that even I would qualify for an article by such criteria.--Theo (Talk) 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, well formatted, and probably someone's labour of love, but they didn't read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, or this wouldn't have existed in the first place. Master Thief Garrett 10:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Perhaps one of the world's five most notable research report writers for the world's largest market space; financial services. Still don't agree? This example may convince you: Name the ten best paid celebrities (entertainment, sports) (Forbes celebrities), you have probably heard of them. Name the ten best paid CEOs (Forbes CEOs), you may not have heard of all of them. But the compensation of the top 20 on the two lists almost perfectly match each other (at least during 2004). Forbes even has a list of the best paid business analysts (Forbes analysts). --Jerryseinfeld 20:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem to know a lot about this man. If you want this article to be kept, please rewrite it so it doesn't sound so vain and chatty. Then I (and maybe others) will reconsider the previous vote. Remember, we're not voting on what *could* take up this namespace, only what *is* here right now. An article on Bill Gates would be deleted if it was as chatty as this. It's not the potential, it's the content right now. If this is not rewritten it will be deleted, and someone at a later date may choose to recreate it properly. Master Thief Garrett 23:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3660 Google hits, most of them nude photos of her; therefore she's probably not noteworthy other than for her cleavage! Master Thief Garrett 10:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable model in Britain and no less worthy of an article than the many nude models and porn stars already inclued in Wikipedia. Actually, this piece has more content than most of those other articles. 23skidoo 20:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, regular page 3 girls are "Well known entertainment figures" (Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies)" Kappa 02:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable model. Megan1967 04:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smells made up to me... Master Thief Garrett 10:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Why? See [3], [4]. Strong keep. FreplySpang (talk) 17:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Mangalore. Megan1967 04:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiant_* 10:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep its not made up Yuckfoo 16:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Is it real? I don't know what to think... Master Thief Garrett 09:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio is what it is (unless the anon who created it is the author of [5], in which case it's original research. FreplySpang (talk) 17:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio takes precedence but the concept behind the article should be kept once a non-copyvio version is created. The existence of this concept is well sourced at Hofstede. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even if it wasn't a copyvio (i.e., the uploader is also the author) that would fall under No Original Research, wouldn't it? I'd sooner see it just plain deleted. If at some indistinct time someone else wants to recreate it, then that's fine. As it is, we'd need someone quite knowledgeable in the subject to replace it with an adequate article... Master Thief Garrett 03:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the editor had good intentions, but this should be merged with Dallas, Texas core page, surely??? Master Thief Garrett 10:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't nominate things for deletion that you don't want deleted. There's more than one tool in the toolbox. Get the ((merge)) tag out and use it. Uncle G 14:23, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• I'd vote Keep, and it's an invalid nomination. If you think it should be merged, add ((merge|Dallas, Texas)) up top. --SPUI (talk) 15:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • nonono, I mean is Dallas, Texas' Main Street even noteworthy? When I say "merge" I'm meaning in the "add one or two lines and delete the rest" sense. I mean, it's not exactly, um, that street with the White House on it (name escapes me at the moment)...? Master Thief Garrett 07:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Dallas, Texas' main street is more noteworthy than many small villages. Kappa 11:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But *how* notable, that's the issue? Does it deserve it's own page at all? Master Thief Garrett 12:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Most major streets are "notable". This one certainly is. --Centauri 12:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well then I suppose I can add the mainstreet of Cabri, Saskatchewan then? Yes I am being facetious, but you see my point: where do we draw the line? Master Thief Garrett 12:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If there's not much to say about it, then it can be merged with the town (by that I mean a real merge, not your type of neutered merge). In this case there is enough for a full article. --SPUI (talk) 16:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Main street of one of the largest cities in the United States is quite notable. Mike H 04:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Roads_and_streets. In general, for merging you can be bold and do so, rather than dragging it through VfD. Merge this, btw. Radiant_* 10:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I've added a merge tag. Master Thief Garrett 10:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep it is notable, please dont move it Yuckfoo 00:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Main street of major city. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Main Street" is often not the main street of a major city. This one certainly is not the defining street of Dallas, Texas. Merge and redirect (which you should have done via discussion on the articles' Talk pages, not through VfD). Rossami (talk) 02:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A major street of a major city is notable, even if it is not considered the definining street of the metropolis. The article seems to establish notability. If this were merged to anything, I think it would be Downtown, Dallas, Texas.--Pharos 07:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15,000 Google hits. Possibly POV, apparently directly dumped from a website. Clearly a copy-vio. Does he deserve his own article? Master Thief Garrett 11:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite. Google for "Patrick Wong" minister and you get over a thousand, which isn't what I call very, very few. Perhaps you mistyped somewhere? The hits include this one from the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. [6]. Unless this is some form of extremely elaborate hoax, Mr Wong would appear to easily qualify for an article. However, a direct cut and paste from a website isn't it. Average Earthman 10:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, I must have mistyped, I did like five pages at the same time. I've finally found the correct wording of the plagarism tag, and added it. Master Thief Garrett 11:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. moink 07:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: Image:Deakin Law Students Society Logo.gif must be deleted if this article is deleted or it will become an orphan.

• Comment: As I understand it, images must be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. This is particularly important right now as there's a bug in the current MediaWiki code that makes it a bit tricky to tell whether an image really is unused. Also, everyone please sign your posts. No vote as yet. Andrewa 15:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was listing the image here in the context of the article. Since I believe the article should be deleted, therefore the image can be done at the same time. It wouldn't make sense to have a separate vote for the image and then find out the core article wasn't deleted. Or would it? Well you might be right, I've never really run into such an issue before... I will have to read up on these rules... hmm... Master Thief Garrett 22:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete...this qualifies as an ad, right? And even if not, not enough Google hits. Master Thief Garrett 10:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a non-profit organisation - how can it be an ad? Further Google Search for "Deakin Law Students Society" returns 50 000+ results.
  • Easily. Similarly, many non-profit websites are desperate for page hits. Arguably the term 'vanity' is more appropriate, though. Radiant_* 10:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: since the founding of Wikipedia, more and more websites have been cloning our content. Upon investigation, many of the results are pages like that, or blogs, or "stuff in Deakin area" pages, or such, rather than wider-area pages. Therefore the number of Google hits does not necessarily notability. Master Thief Garrett 09:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, number of Google hits doensn't necessarily establish nobility one way or another- but "not enough Google hits" was one of your reasons for nominating in the first instance.--Damon 06:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • oh... yeah... I was meaning not enough that are valid, but I neglected to specify that fact. Master Thief Garrett
• Delete, nn. Existence does not equal notability. Non-profit does not mean not an ad. RickK 22:37, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and continue to expand. --Damon 00:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established, promo. Megan1967 04:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important student groups at major universities should have a place in Wikipedia. --Centauri 06:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Precedent is that student group information is merged into the college/university article. See Dartmouth College. RickK 19:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student groups local to a single university. At the very most, redirect it back to Deakin University, from which it sprang forth, and which still has practically all of this spinoff's content. —Korath (Talk) 20:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless fork. Redirect if people really want to. Radiant_* 10:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 04:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The Deakin University article should be about Deakin University. The three sentences about DLSS already in the article are more than adequate for that purpose. Any expanded coverage for student associations should be in separate articles.
  • For a precedent, see Rutgers University where every organization links to a different Wikipedia article or to an off-site article (just as html was designed to work). DialUp 05:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A couple of general comments:
    • Anyone wishing to create categories to assist those studying particular subjects (i.e. Australian Law Students Associations) has a difficult task when the subject articles are lost inside larger articles.
    • When possible, articles should be tightly focused on the subject. The tendency to merge disparate subjects into loosely organized articles reminds me of hobo stew—one may throw everything into one pot, but it can be very hard to swallow and harder to digest. -DialUp 14:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Or it can be a rich tapestry of context against which the detail can be more easily or more completely understood. (The argument about categories does not win me over. Articles are for the benefit of readers. Categories are for the benefit of articles. Not the other way around.) Merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I guess we disagree on this. To me, the Deakin University article would not be enhanced by including specific information concerning an independent student society; such as society membership qualifications and society sponsored competitions and social events (I noticed that the DLSS article ignores pub crawls and booze cruises). And the DLSS subject would be degraded from linking with other articles (internal anchors don't work real well in Wikipedia, especially in longer articles), as well as eliminated from categorization. Nor, for the same reasons, do I think the Deakin University Law School should be merged with Deakin University. To me categories are not article enhancements—they are just another kind of navigational aide for the user. At least we agree the article is an encyclopedic topic. DialUp 14:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Grue 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

According to the entry, the woman is just a normal mother.

Lotsofissues 10:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be an unremarkable geneology page, and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Average Earthman 10:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a geneology reference site. Although, so much of this stuff is added each day, we might as well start one... Wikineology! Master Thief Garrett 10:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a newbie, possibly autobiographical, and appears to intend to add her children and other relatives as well, see user contributions, most of the added births are in the last few years. There are problems with a genealogy wiki covering living people, and even recently dead ones, notably vandalism and identity theft. Andrewa 16:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 00:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense article. 0 hits in Google. -- Longhair | Talk 10:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Jshadias 11:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Master Thief Garrett 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, created by a vandal. RickK 22:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 04:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense article. 0 hits in Google. - Jshadias 11:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as above. Master Thief Garrett 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- nonsense article. - Longhair | Talk 12:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Aunithologist" is a mis-spelling of ornithologist, by the way. Uncle G 14:30, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, created by a vandal. RickK 22:40, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The VfD requestor didn't do this so I will gren 11:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: The article needs work but it is definitely encyclopedic... gren 11:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- and cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 12:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no different from Canadian cuisine Klonimus 04:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete The article seems to more-or-less be about the absence of Nauruan cuisine, as well as a not-too-subtle chastisement of the locals for eating junk food. Maybe a good article might be made about this topic someday (though the current one suggests that there's not much material to work with) but it would have to be a complete rewrite. If article is kept, I suggest merging with Nauru. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect into Culture of Nauru. Wonder what the traditional cuisine is? FreplySpang (talk) 17:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Culture of Nauru. Megan1967 04:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiant_* 10:58, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at this location and not redirect. The "X-an Cuisine" is a common subarticle of the main Culture article. In this case, this article has more information than most Cuisine articles, as most have never gotten past a list of links, (see even Cuisine of the United States). --Dmcdevit 01:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all food is notable for a truly great encyclopædia.

Grue is the name of a high protein oatmeal-based concoction used in Arkansan prisons for punishment rations- edible and nourishing, but revolting.

Grue was also at the center of a 1970s Supreme Court case -- prisoners claimed the food was unconstitutionally bad, and the court agreed that the grue-serving prison was violating the 8th amendment, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It is mentioned in an NPR article on a currently suspect prison dish "the loaf." ^[1] Grue 18:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO forummer/BBS user/etc. should EVER be thought worthy of their own page on WP, unless they are the handle for a notable person. Sorry. Master Thief Garrett 11:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with Garrett, and furthermore I'd say that on the rare occasion that a truly famous person does have a forum or chat account somewhere, that info (if noteworthy) should be added to the famous person's own article, not given an article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no need to apologize. CDC (talk) 13:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Unsure. I don't think this article is about a particular person at all. My reading of it is that it is about a particular grammar, a way of referring to previous poster(s) to a thread, and I think we'd need someone active on Japanese BBSs to say whether this is encyclopedic. I guess in the absence of that we could argue from the silence that notability has not been established, but I notice the contributor does list Japanese as an interest. I found the article interesting and well written, if a little obscure. Hmmm. No vote as yet. Andrewa 15:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is true, but I think that the fact that this "forum character" isn't even supposed to represent a real person makes him/her/it less important than if it did, if anything. One thing I take into consideration when voting on forumcruft articles is this: Would this subject be recognisable or of research value to those not involved with the forum? For example, many famous memes started out on a message board somewhere, but are known to the rest of the world as well. Conversely, an article on "Admins on WienerBoy348's Local Dial-Up Chat BBS, 1987-1988" would be of interest only to those mentioned. Our current subject seems pretty much isolated to one forum, and thus probably not article-worthy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Still unsure. I mainly wanted a reality check, as it seemed that the nominator hadn't understood the article at all, nobody seemed to have picked that up, and the only person involved yet who understands Japanese seems to be the contributor. We have an article on the forum in question, so perhaps merge and redirect is the way to go, but it's a lot of information to add. Hmmm. Still no vote. Andrewa 17:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • From what I've heard, 2ch in Japan is like AOL 5-10 years ago in the US. A LOT of people use it. --SPUI (talk) 20:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand that ">>1-san" is not a particular person, but instead anyone who makes a "First Post!!!!!1111!!!!!oneoneone". Still, this is non-encyclopedic chatroomcruft. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Ar, no. On 2ch, the first post creates a thread. The "first post" thing is done on the second post, with a post saying 2 getto (2 get). Kusunose 05:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This seems to be a stereotype of a clueless noob. Unless something else is brought up, I vote keep or merge with 2ch. --SPUI (talk) 15:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, trivial. Megan1967 04:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article isn't about a specific person (and I'm not sure how it could be interpreted that way), it's about a common cartoon character found on the biggest BBS in Japan, and also found in several Flash cartoons. At least two guide books have been published (dead-tree, not merely e-published) on the 2ch cast of characters. This article was created to accompany Giko Cat and Mona (ASCII art), two other common 2ch characters, which have articles on the Japanese wikipedia as well. I wouldn't be averse to merging them all into an article on 2ch AA characters, but I think there'd be too much there to merge into the 2ch article itself (and List of 2ch Boards has already been broken out), and the interlanguage links would be lost. — Gwalla | Talk 07:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Gwalla, and 1,820 google image hits for 1-san's friend Mona. (1-san doesn't google very well). Kappa 19:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (yes I finally voted). We seem to have no expertise in Japanese language or culture here, but on the evidence we do have so far, I say this is encyclopedic. Assuming that, it's an excellent short article. Andrewa 12:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is notable in the same way that Anonymous Coward and B1FF are notable; not as handles of real people, but a combination of a generic title and fictional character. That said, should the English Wikipedia be a repository of 2ch memes? A Man In Black 07:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This character is an essential part of 2ch culture which has progressed beyond the status of a meme and is now a cultural icon, along with Mona, Giko-neko, and Shii. Compare the universal recognition of these characters on 2ch to relatively unimportant ones that fill the thousands of entries in the 2ch AA Daijiten which are mere memespawn to be forgotten between copy-pastes. 2ch is enormous, quite possibly the largest forum on the Internet, with millions of new posts every day, and over 700 separate boards. Just because you don't speak Japanese isn't a reason to write it off as unimportant. Also, there is no good reference for information on 2ch in English besides Wikipedia and some random forum posts scattered across the web, but there are hundreds of thousands of sites about 2ch in Japanese (Google gives almost a million for "2ch"). I would not oppose moving this article into a single "2ch Characters" article. Also, searching for 1さん would be better than 1-san because the latter is only a romanization. — Ts'éiyoosh 09:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles are typically at romanized names, but I have made a redirect from 1さん. --SPUI (talk) 11:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since I forgot to actually specify my vote before. The fact that >>>1-san is not an individual person after all is largely immaterial, it is still a very small audience who even know about this term in the first place, and thus even those familiar with it won't think to search for it here because of its obscurity... and if anything this could be merged with n00b or first post or similar... Master Thief Garrett 12:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 2ch apparently has 10 million visitors per day, that doesn't sound like a "very small audience". Kappa 08:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and dont get so carried away Yuckfoo 16:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like something-cruft. Grue 18:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Internet slang. RadioActive 05:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Huh? It's a character, not a slang term. — Gwalla | Talk 06:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

90 Google hits; an ad? POV? Something like that no doubt. Master Thief Garrett 11:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep Somewhat borderline though. Needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not make clear how this foundation is notable. Martg76 17:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... barely — Group headed by former Libertarian party US presidential candidate. Where do you draw the line on which political support groups are notable? — RJH 17:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/StickHorsie

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 07:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be a vanity page for a high school wrestler. Delete. --Allen3 ^talk 12:55, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry people, but, no, not here. That's like the tenth one in a few hours! I'm beginning to think we need a new rule page, "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a high-school yearbook"! Master Thief Garrett 02:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:07, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see any evidence that this is important. It's one part of a single routine by a stand-up comedian we don't have an article for. CDC (talk) 13:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not to be insulting, but pointing out mathematical quasi-factoids sounds like a pretty lame excuse for a stand-up act. What, did the monologue on long-division not play well in Peoria? Was the screed on floating-point to integer conversion a washout in Walla-Walla? Has the routine on topological transormation tanked with tossing tomatoes in Tallahassee? In any case, thouroughly trivial/non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The base ten number system is a deliberate raping of children's minds. --SPUI (talk) 15:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I wrote this article after reading the article on numerology and remembering this routine from the late 80s. It was my first article, and I thought that I was following proper procedure, but if not, I apologize. After all, Jeff Foxworthy's redneck routine is mentioned in the redneck article ... is my article best suited to be placed elsewhere? Seinfreak37 17:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jeff Foxworthy is a standup comedian of national fame whose whole career has, to my knowledge, been based on his "redneck routine". Does this comedian have that sort of notability? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Here's what I suggest: Since Charles Fleischer has not been created yet, someone should start that article, then merge Moleed into it. Zzyzx11 | Talk 19:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. This is supposed to be funny? RickK 22:46, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is like that "random" comedy stuff that's become popular of late. Like how Ali G suddenly asks a guest if they dial for a hooker when their wife's not available. But it's different to that so I don't really know. Maybe if it was read to me in a funny way, I'd laugh. Maybe if they offered free popcorn too... Master Thief Garrett 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't redirect to the man himself, there aren't enough results for him, and most Google results are for a same-name actor. If anything, the actor is more deserving of the core namespace. Master Thief Garrett 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is being bad enough to make a movie notable? It isn't famously bad. It's not even on IMDB.

• Delete — Helpful Dave 14:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. The only google hit I could find was a wikipedia mirror. Xezbeth 14:21, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would appear to be so bad it is unverifiable. Such a film would only be notable if it was a cult bad film, or affected an established, notable studios in a permanent manner. Average Earthman 17:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not on IMDB? Then not on Wikipedia either. That's showbusiness for ya! Master Thief Garrett 02:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jpgordon (nonsense) --cesarb 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Company is valid and site is linked - but contents are nonsense created by anon?

• Deleted as patent nonsense. No history. Just mark these things ((delete)). (And sign your entries here!) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks --Doc Glasgow 20:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising for a website - if people want to know about linuxquestions.org they can visit the website itself! --Danrees 14:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Good stub. If they really do have 150,000 members, that's encyclopedic. Andrewa 16:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable community. —Markaci 2005-04-23 T 16:42 Z
• Comment: Please don't assume all WP users have easy internet access. Kappa 17:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Who assumed that? Mgm|^(talk) 21:44, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I believe he is making reference to Danrees, who said people should check the original site. Keep, BTW. --Sn0wflake 21:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Danrees above, and Master Thief Garret below. Kappa 13:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Over a million Google hits. RickK 22:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand I guess. Actually has 1.7 mil Google hits! But needs to be rewritten so as to not sound like an ad but rather an article. But since they already have their own wiki, do they need to be here also? I really don't know... Master Thief Garrett 02:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC). Go on with this, it is a very good forum (redhatrosh)

• Keep and expand. Notable. Megan1967 04:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major part of the Linux community. N-Man^talk 20:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep if it really gets almost 2 million google hits - why not Yuckfoo 00:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep An important Linux community site. I agree with a rewrite to make the article less ad-like. --Btmiller 17:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A great resource for linux enthusiasts --Masand 19:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although a member of this great website, I'm afraid LQ.org is not encyclopaedic content. What about other websites? Should Wikipedia serve as an advertising board for websites like this? Sorry. Please delete. --Bigbossman 01:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable enough

• delete - not notable Samw 15:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unwikified garagebandcruft from a newbie, an anon with no other edits. Andrewa 16:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a proving ground for bands that haven't made it yet. Sorry bro, that's showbusiness for ya! Master Thief Garrett 02:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a missspelling of Kenosis on which there is already an article -- I've merged everything that's new into Kenosis so delete this Doc Glasgow 15:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to kenosis for two reasons. Firstly, it's a probable mispelling, and therefore a useful redirect, and our policy has been to keep these and even give them the benefit of the doubt. Secondly, cut-and-paste merges (I haven't checked whether you have done one, but the principle is important enough to mention anyway) violate the GFDL unless the history is somehow preserved. Andrewa 16:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry didn't think about copyright - but I did greatly amend the info - redirect sounds sensible

• Delete, duplication. Megan1967 04:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as a plausible typo and as the simplest way to preserve history info. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:10, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The article appears to be about a series of books that were supposedly begun in September 2004. However, I can find no evidence that these books have ever actually been published. Googling for "The Cumbrian Engines" finds an almost empty web page: [7] there's nothing in Google groups, and Amazon.co.uk doesn't have these books in its catalogue. I think this is an unpublished author puffing his books on a vanity page Malcolm Farmer 16:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The originator has blanked the page, too. RickK 22:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree... strangely enough, there's MORE info on this Wiki page than there is on the (official?) page you found. Master Thief Garrett 02:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable Dsmdgold 10:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by RickK (no content) --cesarb 00:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The author apparently wants to make a "soft redirect" from article space to category space. I changed it to a real redirect, but got reverted. As far as I know real redirects are unproblematic from an article to a category; the just don't work from one category to another. But is there any reason to have an article which only contains the word "See" and a category? -- Uppland 16:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — The Composer page has links to several pages giving lists of composers by nationality, but this page does seem pointless with its current content. — RJH 17:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No, there isn't. Delete. Either it's a list (in the article space) or it's a category (in the category space). --cesarb 17:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "See" is not an article. José San Martin 20:01, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. No content. RickK 22:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 07:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Extremely non-notable – this is really just a link to a message board.--Doc Glasgow 17:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. Linuxbeak 18:59, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pseudo-ad, few if any message boards are worthy of mention here. Master Thief Garrett 02:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, promo. — JIP | Talk 04:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnotable. Put in for his connection to the more notable Constance E. Cumbey, who is under Vfd, --SqueakBox 17:54, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment +"herb peters" +666 on Google nets 56 hits. Firebug 06:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's been here 2 weeks now! --SqueakBox 19:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial, nonencyclopedic collectorcruft. Delete. Postdlf 22:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Note: User:Speedway originally added the link for a vfd on this article to the daily log[8], but did not add a vfd tag to the article nor fill out this voting page. I'm completing and endorsing his nomination.) Postdlf 22:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, pseudo-ad, trivial, non-encyclopedic collectorcruft. Master Thief Garrett 02:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)Keep until such time as it can be Merged with Disneyana. Master Thief Garrett 01:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert, cruft. Megan1967 04:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think I gave my reason somewhere on Wikipedia lol....but you all seem to have made your own minds up. --Speedway 10:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • See above, it seems you didn't finish your nomination, or, at least, not correctly... it's hard to remember all those steps... Master Thief Garrett 11:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Disney Pin Trading (and merge if anything's worth merging). This is unfortunately a major thing. They have huge kiosks set up in the parks just for pin trading. --SPUI (talk) 12:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just... just... *just* for pin trading? And here I thought LEGO shows would look weird to the uninitiated... But you might be right about redirecting... Master Thief Garrett 12:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge/redirect to Disney Pin Trading. Lochaber 00:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I question whether Disney pin trading should exist either, though you can consider merging there my backup vote if outright deletion fails. I think the general term for Disney collectables is "Disneyana"—maybe someone knowledgeable should create that and merge both pin articles there. Postdlf 00:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • 43,900 Google matches for "pin trading" disney and 20,900 for "disney pin trading". It's fucking stupid, but a whole lot of people do it. Though I wouldn't oppose a move/merge with Disneyana, I think it's notable enough to stay on its own. --SPUI (talk) 00:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the other article is a stub as it is. Your Disneyana link doesn't work but it could be Disneymania or Mickeyana or something for all we know. Merge both into the core Disney collectible page, I say... Master Thief Garrett 00:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Disneyana would be the page for that; it's just not been created. --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with SPUI. If and when the Disneyana article is created, this article should be merged into it. I have brought it up to code, and should be kept the way it is (unless edits are necessary) until it can be merged. --Evanwohrman 00:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree as well. I'm changing my vote. Master Thief Garrett 01:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious advertisment and it's not even in English. Linuxbeak 18:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; I agree. José San Martin 19:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Speedy?. Not even in English, there is no question about whether this is an ad or not. Does this qualify as a speedy, so we can send it to its doom as quickly as possible? Master Thief Garrett
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Meelar (attempt to correspond) --cesarb 00:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this page should even be here. However, it's linked from the page Paralympic Games.

• I speedied as an attempt to correspond--text was (approx.): "Hi, how many people attend Wheelchair dance at the paralympic games?" Meelar (talk) 19:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (and move). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental duplicate of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Incandescent Pahoehoe fountain. Now that the votes are well established on that page, this one should be deleted to avoid confusion. -- Solipsist 19:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A redirect would've avoided pointless administrivia. But might as well delete since you brought it up. —Korath (Talk) 21:58, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake moink 07:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we should merge major organizations' links to the article on the tsunami itself and then delet this page.

this article violates all sorts of wikipedia standards, but it was created to assist in donation efforts. in its creation, this article was meant to be temporary - and now it is time to delete it. although relief fund-raising continues, it has fallen off, and wikipedia *must* get rid of this article which violates all kinds of policies and standards. Kingturtle 19:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Kingturtle is correct about the circumstances of the article's creation. In my proposal to break Donation out from 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which was then a single page, I stated that it would be a special temporary page for the time needed. My edit after the initial paste from the main article reiterated that it was "special temporary". This disclaimer was lost only recently. Deletion would be accordance with the understanding reached for its creation, especially if it violates policy. - BanyanTree 21:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Time for it to go now. It has served its purpose, and is now just clutter. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect. A breach of the rules done for a noble purpose, and it no doubt succeeded in gaining more donations for the cause, but now is its time to go. Possibly redirect to the core page so anyone clicking through from a Wikipedia source-based website can still find information about where to donate. Master Thief Garrett 02:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Archive it somewhere please. Kappa 02:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree - it shouldnt stay on wikipedia as it did bend the rules regarding advertisement and soapboxes. Megan1967 04:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• At the very least, redirect to the main page so as to not break incoming links (of which there are many). sjorford →•← 08:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That also means that anyone still wishing to donate can do so from there, rather than being "404'ed" and turning away in dismay (as such). Master Thief Garrett 08:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Couldn't it be moved to an encyclopedic article at something like List of charities accepting donations for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, or some better title like that? --Dmcdevit 19:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect N-Man^talk 20:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. it is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 22:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclo. Radiant_* 11:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A good thing to have in the days after the earthquake, but it has served its purpose and is not encyclopedic. Indrian 04:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Disclaimer : I am the first person to question the appropriateness of the content in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake talk page. SYSS Mouse 20:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There actually are not all that many inbound links to this article - and many of the ones that do exist are either user pages (of the "I worked on this" or "I have a comment about this" kind) or Wikipedia pages discussing the controversy. Very few are actual article links. Fixing those links seems very solvable. Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of external links in from outside sites, although now I look at it I'm not sure there are that many after all. sjorford →•← 10:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it says, it's temporary. —kooo 09:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Donations for victims.... If thats the purpose of the artice. If its purpose is to talk about donations in general related to the disaster, then thats rather encyclopedic in scope DYT? -SV|t 00:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake --Smooth Henry 04:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Jobarts^-Talk 18:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• delete or redirect -Pedro 01:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is yikes a reason? :) Vanity. Fancruft. Fails Notability guidelines and also the google test. Please kill. --Woohookitty 21:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well it's not vanity in that it was not written by him. He's notable in that he is a member of Simple Plan, which is rather famous if rather crappy Good Charlotte-esque band from Quebec. I suppose it is crufty in that it was written by what seems like a typical Simple Plan fan. But I will say keep and just clean it up. Adam Bishop 21:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge what little intelligible and non-trivial content there is into Simple Plan and redirect. "Yikes" is right. android↔talk 21:28, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd agree with a merge, but I'll let the vote stay. --Woohookitty 21:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We seem to have an awful lot of articles on these people... I'm not sure whether they're all notable. Didn't we have another one on VFD recently? Mgm|^(talk) 21:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • strange, maybe one of us with lots of free time needs to cull through that list. Seems rather unlikely to me that all those people would be notable and share that odd surname. They might be non-notable or even fake, so someone really needs to crawl through and Vfd without mercy. Master Thief Garrett 02:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It's hardly an odd surname; it's the French language equivalent (both in meaning and in frequency) to "Smith". Bearcat 03:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • OH! I did not know that. "It's Greek to me"... Thanks for that, that's very interesting...! Master Thief Garrett 22:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition, each of the members of Simple Plan appear to have their own articles. The one for Charles Comeau is slightly more intelligible than this one, but I don't understand why we need to know how tall Chuck is. I have merged the content from those articles into Simple Plan. I will, of course, save the redirect of this article until the VfD is closed. android↔talk 03:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to simple plan. Meelar (talk) 23:28, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• After looking at the article some more, I agree with the merge/redirect vote. Adam Bishop 23:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Simple Plan. Master Thief Garrett 02:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like trivial cruft. Megan1967 04:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Simple Plan. --Spinboy 06:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's a perfectly notable member of a perfectly notable band. This is mad. I think I'm ending up an inclusionist again. Ambi 08:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Ambi Kappa 13:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand band is notable, so should be its members. Circeus 18:15, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. We can recreate a separate article if he ever does anything important outside of his current band. Academic Challenger 00:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as above. Radiant_* 11:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Member of popular band. Capitalistroadster 04:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Based on the evidence available so far, his notability is solely derived from the band. He should be discussed in context until and unless he does something independently notable. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please dont kill this Yuckfoo 16:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep members of notable bands. Grue 18:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as per the comments made by Academic Challenger. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, then keep per Ambi, Circeus (although I could imagine some bands who were just notable enough, but not their members, Simple Plan are a huge commercial success), Capitalistroadster and Grue. Samaritan 19:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:13, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that at some high schools, this interference with another student's possessions for the purpose of harassment is indeed called "backpack rape". But even if the practice itself is widespread, this term for it does not appear to be; it gets 32 unique Google hits, all of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors or the accidental result of keyword stuffing. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete offensive neologism. LevelCheck 21:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Commonly used expression, gaining in currency I'm afraid. Springmourning44 21:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User's fourth edit and he/she deleted another user's vote BrokenSegue 04:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Not wide-spread. Words are supposed to be in wide use before the article is created. Mgm|^(talk) 21:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article provides evidence of significant usage. Gamaliel 22:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. android↔talk 22:38, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We should have a word for the violation of Wikipedia that occurs when crap like this is posted. Postdlf 22:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. RickK 22:55, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I never heard of the term myself, since usually when people see their stuff being messed around with, the students usually respond with obscentities or "hands off, yo." Plus, rape is (IMHO) a word that should not be used lightly. Zscout370 02:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. As for gaining in popularity, I've never heard of it myself. And I was just thinking what the above wrote, that comparing pranksters' backpack vandalism with forceful sexual violation is rather thoughtless. Master Thief Garrett 02:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if it was in widespread use, just the fact of it being a thoughtless and tasteless expression wouldn't be a reason to not report on it. I don't even doubt that it is in use somewhere. But if it was in any sort of widespread use, you'd think there'd be at least one Google hit for it in actual use... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That is why the VfD is here. We have no clue where it is used (which is probably a small area), when it started or anything along those lines. Someone mentioned on other VfD's that when this or other type articles are picked up, many mirrors of Wikipedia pick it up, so this word appears on their severs. And other than those listings, there is nothing else out there. Though me and a few others agree that this is a tasteless term, we cannot include it here since it is a local term used by a term people (which is denoted by the term neologism). Zscout370 03:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that you'll find that Antaeus agrees with you that the article ought to be deleted, since he nominated it. He was expressing a concern that I share: you Master Thief Garrett and LevelCheck objected to this article not only because it is a neologism, but also because it is an offensive neologism. If it weren't a neologism, the fact that it is offensive would not be sufficient reason for its deletion. android↔talk 04:05, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Oops, sorry, I just noticed that I confused your vote with Master Thief Garrett's. android↔talk 04:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. I also IMO find it offensive that the word "rape" has become trivialised to this extent. Megan1967 04:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is not a neologism in any real sense. It might be a tasteless term some are uncomfortable with but the truth is we use the word rape in very many contexts, which could be said to trivialize. I've heard the expression many times including on television so I doubt it is restricted to any one area or state. Walkingeagles 04:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Really? I've never heard it myself, and it's not on any news articles found via Google... but you could be right, maybe it is an emerging term... Master Thief Garrett 04:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User's second edit BrokenSegue 04:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 32 Google hits for a common term among high-schoolers? Right. android↔talk 04:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a sufficiently notable practice, and even if it were, it likely would be impossible to name the article definitively. As a recent American high school graduate, I can attest that this phenomenon has many names, most of them probably very localized. In my high school, this practice was referred to by the verb "to nugget", and I suspect that many Wikipedians currently in high school could provide other terms for it.NatusRoma 05:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • By that definition, this could well be merged with "List of slang for backpack vandalism", LOL! Master Thief Garrett 05:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • When I was in school, we had no terms for it. Plus, this was never done! The anything that comes close to that is staff bookbag search/petty theft by the students. Zscout370 15:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I tried a Google search and all I got was this. And if it were not for this Wikipedia article, that page would not be exisiting. Plus, when I went down the search, all I got were support groups for rape, porn sites and other rape sites. Zscout370 15:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Where I live this is referred to as "flapjacking." Neutrality^talk 00:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — offensive neologism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Who cares if it's a neologism??? Just keep this article since it is interesting to know about. --SuperDude 04:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:NOR cares. It specifically addresses neologisms as things that are not to be included in Wikipedia. android↔talk 04:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 05:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not-notable neologism. (It's also offensive, but that it is not a reason to delete) Dsmdgold 15:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable neologism, no real evidence presented of actual use. Jonathunder 09:00, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• delete this right away Yuckfoo 16:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. HS neologicruft. -- 8^D ^gab 19:41, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Keep: I've heard the term used, although not many times. I think it has potential. YPK 11:54, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC) This unsigned vote is actually by 203.112.80.138 (talk · contribs), who has 15 edits. (YPK here, didn't have an account before. How do you sign a vote?)
  • Use four tildes (~~~~) to sign both your name and date. You can use just three to sign your name alone, but it's preferable to have the date on a Vfd vote to see the chronological flow. Anyway, please enjoy your time with us! Master Thief Garrett 07:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems noteworthy and rather informative. i have been a backpack rape victim before. 68.190.40.38 01:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC) This is the first of 68.190.40.38 (talk · contribs)'s three edits, all to VFDs.[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:15, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Band vanity. Rhobite 22:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tobyox 22:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I hope they'll make it, but right now they're not encyclopedia material. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball either. Mgm|^(talk) 22:37, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I added another related article to the VfD. Rhobite 22:46, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Best of luck to the boys, however. I'd be happy to write their article someday. Wally 00:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, good luck boys! but, according to Wikipedia's rules you don't make the cut. Sorry, that's showbusiness for ya... EDIT: and, sorry again Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You've predicted your album release, but, sorry, a huge list of things could happen between then and now... Master Thief Garrett 02:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 04:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not meeting Notability and Music Guidelines Tuf-Kat 16:54, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• keep, Its a mere stub, too early for vfd --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Respect to the T-Dot, but there are tons of bands in Toronto. Lenev|^(talk) 03:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a long advertisement for a website. Joyous 22:11, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant advertisement or probable copyvio, take your pick. Gamaliel 22:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertcrap. Postdlf 22:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Allow This is a legitimate company (24.61.149.152 did not sign off)
  • 24.61.149.152, please sign all discussion postings so people know who says what. Master Thief Garrett 00:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, adcruft... longest adcruft I've ever seen here... or possibly copyvio, but I cannot as yet find matching lines via Google... or add to a list of "things that make you go '-cruft!'" Master Thief Garrett 00:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promo. Megan1967 04:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I posted this article. There are over 150,000 members of this program. More and more are joining everyday; thus, I believe this article is very informative. Thousands of searches are done everyday for Studiotraffic, and I believe that wikipedia can meet the high demand of information on this company with this article.
  • This is 24.61.149.152 again. SeventyThree 16:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 24.61.149.152 How long will the voting process take?
  • I'd like to ominously whisper "seven days!" like on The Ring, but it's apparently only five. After that point the voting closes and the majority rules. Master Thief Garrett 01:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as ad. Also, 24.61.thingy is obviously exaggerating. Radiant_* 11:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Allow This is a very popular site. If sites like google are allowed, this should be too. (unsigned, by 66.30.68.81) Master Thief Garrett 03:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Allow This article is informative, this business is rapidly expanding. (unsigned, by 24.61.141.85) Master Thief Garrett 03:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• Allow No rules are broken. (unsigned, by 66.31.26.74) Master Thief Garrett 03:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• Allow Seach Google for StudioTraffic or Studio Traffic: Find how many pages you will get! It is time for wikipedia to have an article on this company. In Money Magazine, it is said to be growing faster than the early stages of Google and Amazon. unsigned comment by 24.61.149.152
  • Can you provide a link to substantiate this? Gamaliel 02:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • 66.30.68.81 and/or other anons, you are each allowed one vote and one vote only. Please stick to this rule. Please also sign off your comments so we can see who said what. (oops that was me, accidentally logged out) Master Thief Garrett 03:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirected already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page from someone whose most notable activity appears to have been working at a call center. I should have my own category, let alone an article, if that's the standard for inclusion. Delete. Postdlf 22:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - the author has been adding this page under various spellings of 'Will Robinson' today as well as creating pointless vanity pages - oh and he vandalised my user page. Mariocki 22:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vainty and advertising. --Henrygb 22:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as a redirect to Lost in Space. RickK 22:57, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but do not redirect, it is not even capitalised correctly (robinson?) Master Thief Garrett 00:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Danger Will Robinson. Capitalistroadster
• Transwiki Move to wikiquote --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as RickK suggests above; do Will Robinson, too. — Davenbelle 07:56, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Xezbeth 09:27, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a 'googleless' nobody - but perhaps one of you Canadians out there know better--Doc Glasgow 22:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He has participated in many toronto spoken word events, and been published in numerous poetry anthologies. Simmy Dhaliwal (actually 142.151.184.103)

• Delete Pretty useless even as a stub. The JPS 23:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Googleless? Then not here either. Unless he's sprung up within the last few hours, Google would have found him. Unless of course the name has been misspelled thus causing the lack of results, but I doubt it. 142.151.184.103, I have moved your sign-off up a line, please try to avoid formatting that breaks the flow of a discussion page. Master Thief Garrett 00:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, I have been to one of his readings, he has a book coming out in June, excellent writer. User:AndyisAndy 02:44, 25 Apr 2005
• Delete, vaNNity. Radiant_* 11:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem notable to me. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If his band membership is the only fact that can be said about him, redirect to Sikth. Postdlf 22:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well, all the other guys in the band have articles, though it appears that the band is called SikTh. RickK 23:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. non-notable. He, and the other band members too, should be redirected to Skith. Therefore I'm nominating the others here too via redirects. Master Thief Garrett 23:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete, the others are right, not even worthy of a redirect! Master Thief Garrett 12:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (see revote below)
• Redirect. Meelar (talk) 23:27, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Notability not established. Even Sikth would be struggling to reach music notability guidelines - they've only released one album on an independent label. Megan1967 04:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not notable enough even for redirect. The JPS 09:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete all Information merged and standalone articles are not likely to go beyond a stub any time soon if at all. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, seems to meet criterion. I have listed all three remaining pages, they weren't listed there before. Master Thief Garrett 23:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Notability concerns. I have done some googling to discover this person was an unsuccessful canidate for the Missouri state legislature in 2002, and served as a Republican ward/precint chief during 2003-2004. If no other indication of notability can be found, Delete. --Allen3 ^talk 23:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete IF no notability found (as per above). Master Thief Garrett 23:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 04:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in Missouri, and he's not significant in even local politics. A Man In Black 07:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to John Kerry. moink 07:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the strange naming of the page; it appears the first VfD was never properly archived. When this page was last up for deletion in October 2004, several people who voted keep at that time said that it would be legitimate to bring this article up for discussion again if John Kerry lost the election. As this has happened, I am resubmitting the article. The previous debate can be found at Talk:Peggy Kerry. Ms. Kerry is not notable in any way and would not even have an article if not for a family relation to a presidential candidate. Delete. I will also accept a Merge and Redirect in case there is not enough consensus to delete.Indrian 23:27, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, until she runs for the senate or something noteworthy like that. I too will accept a Merge and Redirect if the whole world's against me... Master Thief Garrett 23:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to John Kerry. Meelar (talk) 03:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to John Kerry. Megan1967 04:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to John Kerry. Coolcat marked this as a speedy, which is bizarre, as this article clearly doesn't fit CSD criteria by any stretch of the imagination. Mackensen (talk) 05:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Definately should not have done that, since he did it after I already put a VfD header at the top of the page. Indrian 06:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Coolcat (talk · contribs) did that to a lot of VfD articles today. — Davenbelle 07:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; see: Barbara and Jenna Bush et al. — Davenbelle 07:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Those are presidential relatives; this is a presidential candidate's relative. Two different things (though I would delete the Bush children too). Indrian 07:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • see: Karenna Gore Schiff (<joke>Jenna Bush 2016</joke>) — Davenbelle 08:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks like a good deletion candidate to me. Indrian 12:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please she is still a significant person Yuckfoo 16:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. moink 07:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many reasons. Original research plus complete lack of citations. Plus Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this definitely falls into that catagory, i.e. advocacy of a new idea. Very unencyclopedic. Sounds like a position paper to me. No place for it here. --Woohookitty 23:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE 1: Image:Commfed2.gif MUST BE DELETED alongside the article or it will become an orphan.

NOTE 2: Image:Canzukmilitary.PNG MUST BE DELETED alongside the article or it will become an orphan.

NOTE 3: Image:Canzuknavy.PNG MUST BE DELETED alongside the article or it will become an orphan.

• Speedy Delete, now found to be copyvio, all of the reasons above, not noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which some of this proposal sounds like. Master Thief Garrett 23:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor a place for crackpot theories (unless they happen to be rather popular crackpot theories). If the images will become orphans, they can be listed at WP:IFD as such and will be deleted, probably without any objections. android↔talk 00:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If the article looks like it's going bye bye, I will post the images to IFD. Thanks for the heads up, Android79. --Woohookitty 00:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But isn't it better to have the sysop/admin delete the page and the images in one fell swoop, rather than having a separate report for the images??? Master Thief Garrett 00:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but articles with images that would become orphans after deletion of the article aren't really all that common on VfD. Might as well used the established process for image deletion. android↔talk 00:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. copyvio http://www.fcscanada.com/federation-proposal.htm - Stoph 00:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete the images too. - Stoph 00:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Added copyvio notice and replaced the Vfd header with my customised one which clarifies the rules conflicts. Crazy, I only just customised that header yesterday and it's already come in handy again... Master Thief Garrett 01:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanman2010 What if I got permission to publish the information? Which I do I was trying to support the webpage.

• It may still be considered original research, but it would be better if you have permission. Note that the original VfD did not mention any copyright violation, but other concerns. (also, sign your comments at the end instead of the beginning with four tildes: ~~~~) - Stoph 04:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Vote reserved pending copyright status If permission to use the content is given, I would like to this article improved with other sources. The person heading this has a well organized effort. I would certainly not view the ideology as 'crackpot'. One need only look at Gran Colombia to see a similar idea that worked in the past. I would like to know however what happens if the copyright situation gets cleared up? Will that even matter in the time frame that is now left? - Diskadia 06:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, the fact that the idea has worked in the past doesn't mean it's not crackpot. It's still a proposal...it's still an attempt to look into a crystal ball...both are against Wikipedia policy. So even if its not a copyvio, it should still go bye bye. Several reasons for this to go...not just copyvio. --Woohookitty 07:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Fair enough delete it then. Apparantly this was published before but some people deleted it so no point doing it twice.Vanman2010
• Delete. The copyright status does not look like it will be resolved. - Diskadia 01:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not? I mean, can't an admin just email the originator for their approval/confirmation?? Master Thief Garrett 03:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, this is not a do or die issue. Even if it isn't a copyvio, it's a proposal trying to look into the crystal ball and Wikipedia doesn't want that. So it doesn't really matter people. :) --Woohookitty 04:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not the right median. Its a copy vio issue use that page not here. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's well on its way to deletion, nearing its fifth day on VfD, without a single keep vote. Listing it at CP would mean it would take longer to get deleted – in my experience, it's taken much longer than five days for anything I've listed on CP to get taken care of. android↔talk 02:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

inconclusive Google results, as he shares his name with an actor or something like that; non-notable; namespace should be freed up for the more noteworthy person of that name. Master Thief Garrett 23:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: the original author has TWICE THREE TIMES FOUR TIMES removed the Vfd notice, this should be taken into account when voting. Due to some other (unrelated) vandalism I have now officially listed this User on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Master Thief Garrett 05:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless someone wishes to completely replace it with the other famous person. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not your local college yearbook. Master Thief Garrett
• Note: the original user has removed the VFD notice from the page. I have replaced. -Rholton 00:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed that! I make a habit of adding all things I report to my Watchlist to monitor vandalism such as this, and it's repeatedly paid off. Master Thief Garrett 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The original editor removed the notice again. See, my monitoring system works! Master Thief Garrett 01:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) EDIT: As I was saying... Master Thief Garrett 03:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) EDIT: and the saga continues... Master Thief Garrett 04:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, vanity --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

• Delete Vanity, although eating 153 bananas 18 days before he was born almost makes him notable. Dsmdgold 15:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 09:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. After reading this it now makes sense concerning the contributions this user has been making to various Sugar talk pages around wikipedia. He seems to be a bit of a troublemaker. I attempted to put an article the anon user created called Sugar blues up for speedy deletion but another regular user disagreed with the nomination. --Randolph 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

first of all not spelled correctly (0 Google hits) the name not even matching the official link it supplies, and when rectified there are 44 Google hits. Non-notable. Master Thief Garrett 23:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 44 hits? Wow. Delete. Grutness|^hello? 07:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

It just seems like advertising to me. (Although the product doesn't even exist.) Additionally, it's linked to from the Programming_languages list article, which it definitely isn't! Quiffhanger

• Delete. Inconclusive Google results, as a file "G.java" comes up as well. An obscure fan project to convert GMDs into Java. Not noteworthy, *possibly* advertising... Master Thief Garrett 00:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: the product does actually exist, just supposedly isn't released yet. Even so, still not notable. Still in beta form, and, considering the track record of past GM-centered projects, will probably never be finished. I can't give a link to the page I just found, it's spamblocked for some reason. Master Thief Garrett 00:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Radiant_* 11:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be an (extremely poorly written) advert --Adun 22:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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