This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was 'delete. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Article reads: "This company is specialized in retrofitting Yakovlev Yak-18 aircraft." A Google search on the terms "Technovia and Yakovlev" yielded 119 results but as far as I could tell every single one was a Wikipedia mirror. I may be sticking my neck out here, but I say delete. DS1953 03:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk 03:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why don't we allocate 6 million pages for every company name ever registered in the history of ever country in the world then?--0001 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This user, created today, has only edited VfD and his own user page — Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Geogre 16:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename: I'm sure it's a mistyping of TECHNOAVIA there's an external link here http://technoavia.ru/ but it's all in Russian and another here http://www.icao.int/anb/ais/8643/8643_List2.cfm showing a long list of aircraft produced by TECHNOAVIA including the Yak-18. Short English piece here http://www.mga.ru/YAK-18T.htm CambridgeBayWeather 20:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic fan listing of toys. Better suited for a a fan page like the one linked to at the bottom, not here. Really detailed list, but... Found this page when looking at recent vandalism by the likely author of this page in eBay. Chairboy 03:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Andrew pmk 03:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why keep? It seems inconsistent based on past vfds. Chairboy 03:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't need an entire list, just an article describing them in general, unless they are specific enough to say...to have articles similar in nature to Charizard. -- Natalinasmpf 04:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The entry was written on a computer that is a part of an office network – this all entries on said network will come under the same IP address. I’d like to point out that I wasn’t responsible for what happened on the eBay entry.
• Keep. Pokemon gets its own list, why not Zoids. Either keep all or delete all. -Hmib 05:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 07:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Topic doesn't seem popular enough to have an article for each, uh, "zoid", so a list is preferable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just so we don't get somebody trying to make articles for each individual one. --Scimitar 14:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's preferable to having individuals articles for all. -- Lochaber 14:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Unlink all names and it can be a keep. A single master page is all we need. Any article on any particular Zoid should be killed and sent to the rendering plant. Geogre 16:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Scimitar and Lochaber, and unlink as per George. — P Ingerson (talk) 17:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unlink all names sounds fine to me. I like toys as much as the next guy, I'm just not seeing how this is encyclopedic. There are a handful of detailed 'zoid' pages that this article links to that should maybe be unlinked.
• Keep with the content rather controled - this shouldn't be seen as a go-ahead to create an article on every single one of these guys. It's a OK show, BTW. Not my cup of tea, but... humblefool® 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

an obvious vanity page... WB 03:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. -- Jonel | Speak 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Pburka 03:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trolls make bad article subjects. Also, I haven't checked the person in question, but it could be an attack on a forum moderator. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for vanity and the lack of notability. Nestea 14:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete. This page was created for a little fun. Read for more information. Not a personal attack.

• Fun isn't a good criterion for including something in an encyclopedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Speed Delete - It's not even an article, it makes no real claims besides "B-con is a poo face". MPS 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, absolutely nothing to warrant inclusion here. --Etacar11 19:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - This is actually quite notable, especially once the term :bcon: takes off, and people will want to know it's origin. Markisdee 02:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Markisdee, you registered after the VfD... Plus, you're a member of . Certainly :bcon: will not "take off." User page is enough if anyone is questioning about his origin. Wikipedia is really not a place to have everyone's personal information. WB 05:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

Speedy Delete None notable person, only characterized by the fact that she was married to somebody famous.

• Comment - finishing nomination by User:Jtkiefer. No vote at this time from me. -- Jonel | Speak 03:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Chairboy 03:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Google has about 1600 hits for her[1], although most seem to be about her autobiography, which seems to largely focus on her husband. I'll err on the side of caution. Pburka 04:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charlie Parker based on information provided by Pburka. -- Jonel | Speak 04:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Jonel. Xoloz 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not nherently notable. JamesBurns 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete!, not notable. Or maybe redir to Charlie Parker. -Hmib 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per above. -- Natalinasmpf 15:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Charlie Parker. Actually, she's kind of important to the Charlie Parker story but not necessarily notable on her own or outside of that context. Geogre 16:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Expand luy

Comment. This user only contributes to vfd pages. -- Natalinasmpf 19:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)

I'm actually rather sympathetic to the article, quite well documented/NPOV, but I just wanted to see what the community thinks, as it might as well be done now, not later. I'm actually voting Weak Keep. People voting here might want to look at A.S. Williams. -- Natalinasmpf 03:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep 18,000 matches for Vinibudd, top ranked ones seem related.Chairboy 04:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I would be very satisfied if that was an accurate representation, but one realises that most of it are forum posts that are rendered "irrelevant" by google: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 154 already displayed." -- Natalinasmpf 04:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This appears to be a vanity page, as both it and A.S. Williams below were created by User:Aswilliams. Moreover, only 150 Google hits are unique (see this search). So, delete. NatusRoma 04:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to vote on whether to keep it or not because I am the one who created the article. However, the article just explains what the character is with a description. It isn't meant to advertise as the comic has enough readers from being linked on fark.com twice. I draw two other comic strips that I don't have on wikipedia because I don't think they are worth it. Furthermore this is a valid webcomic of which there are many listed on wikipedia so if you delete this one you might as well delete all the rest like Gods_of_Arr-Kelaan or Count_Your_Sheep BOTH of which know me. If you want to kill the article because it is vanity, then you need to reread the policy on vanity. Also the comic was has won Featured Comic on drunkduck.com and best weird humor from. buzzcomix.net. Vindibudd is also listed in the yahoo.com comic strip directory. Aswilliams
  • It's not about the votes. This is a discussion to form a consensus, not a democracy. If you can explain how your web comic currently satisfies the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines, you can make a good argument for keeping an article on it. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • I'm aware that this is not a democracy, nor is it a theocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy. And if it is about forming a consensus then there is no need to point out that X user has only posted X number of times, thereby implying that his or her voice should be discounted. AccordingWikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines I get 2 of three on the second criteria the only problem is that I wrote it myself. I think I am much more qualified to write the article than someone else and truth be told people have asked me to write it because they didn't see it here. A.S. Williams
      • There is a need, because we get people rigging votes, ie. due to sockpuppets, and that new users are often discouraged to participate in vfd until they learn the mechanics better through substantial contributions. Furthermore, if it is indeed notable, and from a NPOV, someone else will write it...ie. see Wikipedia:Autobiography - the idea is that if the author creates the article him or herself concerning his or her own works, the article will tend to be biased. I'm not very sure of its notability myself, given a google test, and impact on say, the international scene, the world, and as such. Its only borderline notable, but it seems like a valid encyclopedic article, and therefore I called a vfd to resolve it. -- Natalinasmpf 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you won't be discouraged to contribute by this, I just wanted to see what the community thought of it, because it would be likely there would be a vfd a few days or weeks down the road, and having me spotted it now would be faster. I'm voting weak keep myself. -- Natalinasmpf 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I am very discouraged by this. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to publish articles that were informative for people that were seeking to learn about things. If people want to learn about webcomics then Vindibudd is by all accounts a valid example of one. The strip has close to 300 episodes in its archive and has been online since 2002. There are plenty of webcomics on wikipedia that do not meet superstar Penny Arcade level. But if people are really so consumed with making sure that OMG Vindibudd doesn't make it on wikipedia then what can I say. I don't need this article, I want the article but if you all just absolutely can't tolerate the article then I have nothing to say to that. Maybe you all just don't read webcomics. This is not self promotion. I can advertise on a ton of other sites. Burying an article that only people searching for webcomics and Vindibudd would find is not exactly what I would call a killer marketing strategy. A.S. Williams
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, if it is indeed a valid example of one, one generally shouldn't create an example based on his or her own work, because questions of bias, hoaxes and deception come into play. If it is indeed that valid, then someone else besides the creator of the work should create the article. Of course there are exceptions, but given the small amount of notability of the comic and the author so far...we already have the quite respected climate modeller William Connolley (who is a Wikipedian at User:William M. Connolley, who being a scientist that has published numerous scientific papers (far more notable than a comic strip, for example) already met with a lot of controversy himself. The point is, this is just a discussion. I am glad to see you prove its notability, then that's what this vfd is for. Consider it nothing more than a court trial. Its not that we can't tolerate it, this is merely a discussion to reach a consensus on whether to delete it or not. Just because a vfd appears doesn't mean the community wants to delete it, that only happens after the vfd ends, and heck, appeals to the decision happen as well. And the problem is, Wikipedia is advoated as a neutral medium. It would be very good for advertisers to get their marketing schemes labelled as "not biased". To avoid controversy next time, a lot should be clarified in the article. Anyhow, you might win this. -- Natalinasmpf 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per NatusRoma --Xcali 04:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I see nothing wrong with this article. It is not espousing the comic as anything spectacular, it is not teling everyone that they should go to the website. It is simply an entry that gives the facts and also lets you link to more information. What else is an encyclopedic entry for? If someone else had put this article up, I'll bet it wouldn't even be challenged. So if it's the same article, but a different user, it'd be okay? That's either idiocy or hypocrisy. -Maddog3060 (actually 24.110.193.97 04:47, 2005 Jun 20 according to edit history. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC))
• Keep I personally see no problem with it, it does keep within the guidelines. The article is in encyclopedia form and doesn't advertise itself all over the place. It just gives a detailed description of who he is, and what he does. I suppose the fact that it was written by the Author of the comic would draw a bit of speculation and criticism, it really doesn't stand out as vanity in my opinion. Kainchaos
  • The above comment is this user's first and only edit. Uncle G 11:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• I would be willing to read this, suitably updated over time, as a means of keeping in touch with the subject. Whether, in 20 years' time, people give the proverbial ... --Simon Cursitor 07:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion by A.S. Williams. JamesBurns 07:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete creator's username indicates vanity. Notability is borderline at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Come on, let's allocate 800 spaces for anyone else who's a fan of some obscure comic. I doubt even other fans would even consider wiki would carry it and wouldn't even search for it. This is a good piece, but it belongs on the web at some fansite.--0001 14:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The problem for me is not "vanity" or that the author wrote of his own work. In some cases, that's not a bad thing, as the article is generally NPOV. The problem for me is that artworks should be encyclopedic if they are first of their kind, leading examples of their genres, or substantially influential. If they are breakthroughs of style or subject, they're encyclopedic. If an understanding of them is vital for a historical moment (not "nice to have" but vital), they should be included. In the case of web comics, that excludes all but the incredibly famous ones. No ill-will involved, just a judgment on what is encyclopedic. Geogre 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Like Geogre said, it's not necessarily a problem a vanity, but a problem of relevance. Wikipedia is a more liberal and open version of World Book or Britannica. Neither of those encyclopedias would carry this article because the cartoon and cartoonist haven't had wide-reaching effects on the world. Wikipedia shouldn't publish the articles, because the work isn't notable enough to call for an article, not even on the Internet. I say wait a few years. If the man or the work gets a spot on television or it garners major critics' (not at some niche website) praise; then it would deserve a place on Wiki. However, the article IS well-written and informative. If the subject ever becomes popular, notable, or influential, then by all means publish it here. Volatile 17:58, 20 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per google results and over 100 episodes. Kappa 19:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre and for vanity. Alexa rank 1,515,306, no other claims to notability (DrunkDuck's featured comic is a transient "hey, check this out" sort of thing, not a particularly prestigious award; BuzzComix seems to be closely affiliated) — Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've lost my taste for the whole thing, especially after reading Gwalla's profile about being a webcomic fan and the subsequent ill-informed commentary on my own comic. This was not a vanity article and the reception that I have received here has completely turned me off of wikipedia period. Congratulations. I'll make it my mission that Vindibudd will never be listed here. Good luck. A.S. Williams
• No vote, just a comment to Mr. Williams: it's no major loss to us if your comic doesn't have an article. Wikipedia might be on the internet, but that doesn't mean the people here care about your part of the internet. There are 1000's of webcomics. What makes an encyclopedia care is this: what did you do differently? humblefool® 23:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • • Obviously it's not a loss that my comic is not on wikipedia. It also wouldn't be a loss if 90% all the other webcomics listed here were not. I am positive that wikipedia will not come crashing down tomorrow because it has no contribution from me. Imagine that. I bet it also won't come crashing down if you suddenly stop contributing either. But just because you don't like something or are not interested in something does not automatically make it uninteresting. Which seems to be the major theme here. "I've never heard of it and it doesn't get 200000000 hits a day. That must mean that it isn't worth an article." Shockingly, I didn't see that listed as a requirement. In fact, the vfd policy explicitly states that "lack of fame" is not a valid reason for deletion. Additionally, I wrote an informative article that was not a vanity piece. Here is an example of a vanity piece so you can tell the difference in the future: "X comic is the best comic ever made. Go there now because it is really awesome and you have to see it." The charge that I am promoting myself is rather ludicrous as the I can pay less than $10 and get a few thousand uniques on my site in a single day whereas it would probably take years to accumulate that many from a wikipedia article. So faced with the prevailing attitude of negativity, I'm just not fighting it. You have won whatever argument we were having.A.S. Williams
      • Actually if it becomes that notable, and if it is listed, you will probably have little power to influence it. This rather seems like sour grapes, but I honestly hope you will change your mind about contributing. The point isn't about "lack of fame", but about notability. In case you didn't know, Wikipedian contributors have many attitudes, one has a "no harm in keeping it" and "no use in keeping it", attitude, in terms of half-full and half-empty. I tend to prefer keeping it, but I put it up for vfd to speed the process. Furthermore, it hasn't decided whether its an "honest article" yet, considering that Encyclopedia Britannica will probably not even put your article up. There's a difference between adveritising and vanity, by the way. The article was perfectly neutral, that was one of its best points, however, it gains attention towards itself, and becomes part of Wikipedia canon, and therefore self-centred when it is being contested whether or not it deserves it such in an encylopedia. Its a complex issue: and please, don't try to oversimplify the Wikipedia community as it holds complex views as it is. Its not just because SOMEONE doesn't like it, or finds it uninteresting, I hope you know, but this is a community effort in general. Furthermore, we are using notability guidelines here, we're not judging in on finding it "uninteresting", but whether it merits the reader. -- Natalinasmpf 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was userfy to User:Aswilliams. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

Vanity, seems non-notable, although it seems encylopedic, so I'm slightly sympathetic to it. People voting here might want to look at Vindibudd. -- Natalinasmpf 03:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This appears to be a vanity page, as it was created by User:Aswilliams. NatusRoma 04:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Aswilliams --Xcali 04:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Autobiography. No evidence that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Since this user has made other contributions to Wikipedia, Userfy. Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Aswilliams See my comments above for Vindibudd. Volatile 18:05, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Userfy per Uncle G. — Gwalla | Talk 20:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• userfy this please Yuckfoo 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing here that can't go in Vindibudd, if Vindibudd is kept. Gamaliel 08:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As the author of Vindibudd appears to now be disinterested in fighting on, may I concur with Volatile: Userfy, since as far as I know, no-one is suggesting he isn't a valid user. --Simon Cursitor 12:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy nn but fine for userspace. You (Talk) 00:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP. SYSS Mouse 28 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

• Non-notable, vanity. -- Natalinasmpf 04:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - She was on the list of 2 year old requests. I'm sure the person who requested doesn't care anymore but still why not. If they are non-notable then why weren't they taken off the request list a long time ago like it says. Matthewjhale
• Weak keep. Borderline notable. See [2], for instance. Almost 1000 google hits [3]. Pburka 04:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 07:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - she does appear to have some notability. I would encourage the author of the page to spend some time making sure this article doesn't end up an orphan though: apart from utility pages nothing links to this article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I wonder who it is that wanted it? I see that nixie links to it in her sandbox, but other than that all links are from Requested lists. The book itself was substantial, although as a person I don't think the author is particularly notable. Geogre 17:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Eleven published works in three countries seems sufficiently notable to me. I have added a bibliography to the stub.—Theo (Talk) 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination apparently based on a false premise. CalJW 19:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. She has published a number of works so is a notable author. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep since there is no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Non-notable. Delete. Hmib 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Chairboy 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not exactly nonsense, just very non-notable. -Hmib 04:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He's portrayed in Cinderella Man, which will certainly increase his notability. About 500 google refs apart from the movie [4] (71,000 with the movie). Pburka 04:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 10:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This is not the eccentric from Greenwich Village. This is the man who managed a boxer. Pburka's reasoning is shaky. If one reads the fine print in credits for biographical movies, one finds that such movies often combine or alter peripheral characters for dramatic purposes. Relying upon a movie as evidence is dodgy. Better sources are ones such as this. The article as it stands does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. It is not clear that it could. It appears that Joe Gould himself did not achieve "renown or notoriety". Mention in James J. Braddock and Delete. Uncle G 12:18, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry, Uncle G, but I have to disagree with your reasoning here. His large and memorable presence in such a big movie makes it certain that some people will want to know more about him, even if the character in the movie is a misrepresentation. Therefore, we give them the facts. --Scimitar 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, they won't find anything, and you didn't get the point. The only thing that this article tells us about the real person is that he was someone else's manager. That doesn't meet the WP:BIO critiera. (The only other thing that I found out about this person from research was that he was "confident" in June 1935 — see the above link — and that he gave his 1915 Passover suit to a friend. Those don't meet the WP:BIO critiera, either.) The rest of what this article tells us is about a character in a movie. It tells us what the name of the movie was and what the actor's name was who played the character. That information belongs (and is already to be found in) the article on the movie, not here. Uncle G 23:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep per Scimitar. DS1953 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely. I created this page, and I'm agreeing with whoever said that since the movie, Cinderella Man, people will want to know more about him. And yeah, I don't think he was an eccentric from Greenwich Village. posted by XLikeAGazelleX.
  • The eccentric from Greenwich Village had a movie made about him (Joe Gould's Secret, starring Ian Holm). This Joe Gould hasn't. This Joe Gould is just a supporting character in a movie about someone else. This Joe Gould is just a boxing manager, one of many such, and one that doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 23:04, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think the WP:BIO guideline criteria apply here, due to the function of providing information to distinguish between the character and the real person. Purpose of an encyclopedia's to explain things to people who don't already know them, after all. The Literate Engineer 00:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is a biography about the person Joe Gould. Of course the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies applies. The character is (already) covered in the article on the movie that it appears in. If you want to explain to people that James J. Braddock's manager was a person named Joe Gould, mention it in James J. Braddock, as I said above. Uncle G 01:11, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. We should have an article about the "Professor Seagull" Joe Gould, or at least about the book and movie Joe Gould's Secret. That's who I assumed this page would be about. This guy's obviously pretty insignificant, but if the info added to the substub is true, and not just from the movie, then I can go along with keeping this. -R. fiend 16:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I included the additional data, and it is from independent sources, not the movie (I'd list them, but it took half an hour on google to find 'em, and I'm too lazy to do it again.) --Scimitar 19:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Cinderella Man and Joe Gould (disambiguation) until someone researches deeper than Google and comes up with some biographical information. Until then, the merges should satisfy curious readers. Dystopos 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This individual is notable. Hall Monitor 22:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For being a Lieutenant in the Army? Not according to the WP:BIO criteria, he isn't. Uncle G 02:47, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    • Please be WP:CIVIL. Hall Monitor 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Commenting that someone is not notable, according to the WP:BIO criteria, for being a Lieutenant in the Army is perfectly civil. Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
        • The article does not claim he is notable for being a Lieutenant. The article says he managed a world heavyweight champion - a champion whose management is noteworthy because of wartime PR issues, and a character of sufficient standing to have been portrayed in a movie. There's no need to be sarcastic, just as there is no need to be nitpicky on "notability" issues if verifiability and NPOV are ok. Dystopos 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Oh, that's what Joe Gould's Secret is. Thanks, Uncle G. I'll be looking up more about this guy soon. I'd like to keep this article. Posted by XLikeAGazelleX
• Delete. Gamaliel 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this one please Yuckfoo 22:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:33 (UTC)

• Non-notable, vanity. -- Natalinasmpf 04:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Member of a hall of fame == notable. Pburka 04:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Also on the 2+ year requests. I don't understand why people want so many things deleted. As long as it's not people posting info about themselves, whats the big deal. You don't have to look at it if you don't want to. I'm sure this is very discouraging to a lot of people. I feel like I shouldn't even participate if people are going to delete my contributions. It takes a lot more work for you people to delete stuff than it does for you to leave it alone. --Matthewjhale
  • Yes, people might want to check "what links here before they label something as "vanity". Kappa 08:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't have to look at it if you don't want to. It takes a lot more work for you people to delete stuff than it does for you to leave it alone. — Both of those are highly flawed arguments. The first is flawed because what we want to look at doesn't enter into it. The second is flawed because leaving bad stuff alone is pretty much the opposite of what editors are encouraged to do. Uncle G 12:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • When you say "what we want to look at", are you speeking for millions of people who come here? You shouldn't do that. I've seen plenty of stuff on this site that I personally don't give a rip about but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. And it looks like people agree. --Matthewjhale
      • I repeat: What we want to look at doesn't enter into it. Uncle G 16:46, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
        • Though the argument may not have been fully stated, it has merit. (Wikipedia is not paper). In this case the subject of the biographical article is clearly notable enough for a verifiable, NPOV article and we are wasting our time voting. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • See above for the highly flawed arguments propounded by Matthewjhale that are actually being discussed here, as opposed to the completely different argument that you are propounding and then defending. Uncle G 02:53, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
            • I did read Matthewjhales argument and chose to discuss its substance rather than the details of how he stated it. Dystopos 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • You discussed a completely different argument, as I said. Uncle G 15:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Keep. Due to the hall of fame and member of a touring band. Capitalistroadster 04:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No kidding...playing in a band for Lawrence Welk seems natable to me. --Matthewjhale
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. DS1953 05:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for hall of fame membership and most importantly touring with Lawrence Welk Tuf-Kat 08:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously not vanity -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedily. I'd like to think the artists immortalized in Wiki didn't have short careers in music followed by 30 years at a meat packing plant. That really shows this persons art is etched deep in to the american psyche doesn't it. Any plumbers out there who had a demo tape made in the 70's want a wiki entry? --0001 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The information is worth an encyclopedic article.Qwertzy2

• Very weak delete: The problem is that the article establishes only one reason for notability -- the connection to Lawrence Welk. Surely that's not all it takes to get into the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame? Is that it? Playing behind a Geritol banner gets you there? I'm voting on the article and not the topic. The article says, essentially, "some dude." That's not right. Geogre 17:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment. WP:Vfd is not the place to edit articles. You can do that directly by clicking the "edit this page" tab. VfD is a place to nominate and eliminate articles that have no hope of becoming encyclopedic. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Lawrence Welk, or collect the hundreds of people who played in Lawrence Welk's bands on one page. At an absolute maximum, one page per band (e.g. Lawrence and His Hotsy Totsy Boys, Lawrence Welk and His Honolulu Fruit Gum Orchestra; no, I'm not making that up). By himself, just does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Big bands were *big* and continually changing. Being an individual member of a big band, even a famous one, does not automatically confer notability.

From reading the arguments presented above (and other topics above), it appears that all one has to do to circumvent any guidelines on notability is one of:

(a) Create a request for an article before creating the article. The fact that there is a request should preclude any examination.

and/or

(b) Declare an organization with substring "hall of fame". Anything that calls itself a hall of fame shall not be subject to further scrutiny. Perhaps I'll start the "Any Topic I Want To Keep Hall of Fame" and start inducting members.

--Tabor 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• While I don't understand why a particular topic should not be accepted, and personally feel that any factual information on any topic should be allowed, I am willing to accept that there are some general rules that have been established to guide the Wikipedia and that they should be followed. With that said, I would like to point out that I am new here, and with my three pages that are up for a vote, I was just trying to tie up some loose ends that had been around for awhile. I also feel that the Wikipedia would be better served by people sharing new information rather than deleting it. However, I will try to spend my time on more important topics and hopefully topics that I actually know something about. As far as my three practice runs, keep them or delete them. Sorry for the long post but I didn't know where else to put it. --Matthewjhale
• Keep I see nothing wrong here, and it's clearly not vanity. Volatile 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please why should we erase it Yuckfoo 23:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hundreds of people must have toured with Lawrence Welk. A nice story to tell your grandkids, but hardly encyclopedic. And the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is hardly anything of note either. -R. fiend 16:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and not that being on requested articles means shit or anything, but I doubt this was the Lauren Brown requested. The name brings up many hits, but this one doesn't seem to register. -R. fiend 16:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BIO, while not official policy, has this guideline for deceased persons: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" A "Hall of Fame" recognition, even in Nebraska, seems to more than satisfy the requirement. Dystopos 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do any of us have any idea what the criteria for entry into the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame are? Or if it's even a legit hall of fame? If members of it are so notable why doesn't it have its own article? I'll note that googling "lauren brown" lawrence welk got me a whopping 6 unique google hits, only 2 of them relevant. Far from "wide", sounds liek a pretty narrowly recognized contribution to me. By the way, his son's in the hall of fame too. Where's his article? -R. fiend 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The Nebraska Music Hall of Fame isn't the Kennedy Center Honors. But it is real and verifiable. And it establishes notability sufficient for Wikipedia. Google is not known for widely recognizing the accomplishments of people who did not make their contributions in the field of Linux development or pornography. I'll leave it to you to add Brown's son to the list of requested articles. Dystopos 21:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not the Kennedy Center is right. From their website: "Long term goals include the establishment of a permanent home for the Hall of Fame to display memorabilia, instruments, photos, sound recordings, etc. of all Nebraska Artists". I take it that means they don't have physical presence anywhere of yet, which means the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is a basically just a website. And while Linux developers and porn stars are overly represented in google searches, a mere 2 google hits is miniscule for anyone and anything. I get more than that. -R. fiend 23:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless, Brown's role did make a contribution and it is recognized and verifiable. Dystopos 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "...with Lawrence Welk and His Champagne Music for over 3 years as featured soloist on records in California and on national radio broadcasts". [5] Soloists are notable. Kappa 21:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with User:R.fiend. JamesBurns 06:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable meatpacker. The sole piece of evidence for his "notability" is an amateurish website which claims to be a "hall of fame". I could put up a website and become a hall of fame too. Lots of people played with Welk, so let's list them in Welk's article and then break out the truly notable ones from there. If anyone finds evidence of significant notability from some sort of legitimate reference and I'll change my vote. Gamaliel 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G and Tabor. Quale 04:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

nn forumcruft NatusRoma 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity/non-notable/nonsense. -- Natalinasmpf 04:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Many google refs, but most seem to be forum posts by the subject. Pburka 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 07:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all but the most notable forums. the wub "?/!" 09:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Garbage. Falcon 05:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

• Non-notable, vanity. Google only returns 519 hits. -- Natalinasmpf 04:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - And another thing...don't the rules say to use the what links here tool and if a page is linked from another than it's ok? Quit wasting time deleting everything and share some information. matthewjhale
  • No, the rules don't say any such thing, since the same person who created the nonsense article could have also added the links in other pages. If her movies are listed on Imdb and she isn't, that makes me suspicious. Delete' until further proof is given. RickK 05:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. She was included in the 1983 Whitney Biennial. Pburka 04:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : I took the name as well as the name of every film in the article, and went through IMDB. I couldn't find either her name, or her attributed in any of the films that were actually available on IMDB. Also did a cursory glance through Google and couldn't find any sign of notability. Wikibofh 04:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: The article now definitely establishes notability, and Wikipedia is not paper. Accordingly, I am changing my vote. (Oh, and good job DS1953!) Wikibofh 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • At least three of her movies are on IMDB: [6] [7] [8]. She's not credited, but not surprisingly since IMDB's entries seem to be rather incomplete for them. One of them even won an award. Also, she was included in the 1983 Whitney Biennial, which is a major honour for a young artist. Pburka 05:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I did find several on IMDB, but no mention of her. Lydia Lunch seemed far more notable (mentioned in the three you note I believe. Also, a "young" artist would not be directing a film released in 1979  :) Wikibofh 05:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Speaking of which, Lydia Lunch's self reported bibliography shows Vivienne as the director of several movies. I haven't decided if that changes my vote or not. Wikibofh 05:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: An artist directing a film in 1979 could very well be young in 1983 ;). Pburka 13:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • One of her movies is also listed on the All Movie Guide at allmovie.com. --Matthewjhale
• Strong Keep. Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman has called Dick the "quintessential No Wave filmmaker." See my expansion of the article. Google and IMDB are often good tests, but I think in this case they have proved their own limitations. DS1953 06:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Some notability. Agree with DS1953. JamesBurns 07:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedily. We let her in we have to let in every film school teacher who for two months of a decade had a public forum for thier documentaries in the 80's. It is clear.--0001 14:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DS1953. Well done. --Unfocused 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: This is one of those areas that I always talk about, where Google will let you down. Even the most ephemeral porn star will have 5x the links on Google, but she will also have .001 of the actual notability. Avant-garde artists are very poorly served by Google. The article needs expansion, but the subject is worthy. Geogre 17:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done DS1953 on article on notable avant-garde filmmaker. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and ponder the realization that a person named Vivienne Dick isn't an ephemeral porn star. Dystopos 21:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear in the Grove Art database so I'm not sure if she's an artist of any real note. Does not appear in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats why Wikipedia is better! --Matthewjhale

An astonishingly low standard for inclusion does not make this project better. Gamaliel 22:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, miseryguts. As Wikipedia is effectively infinite in size I've never seen the point in deleting anything useful and well-researched. We are now a primary source of information on this obscure figure. Hurrah! --KharBevNor 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish we could get everyone to share that opinion KharBevNor. I think any factual information on any topic should be accepted. While at the momment I'm willing to follow the current guidelines, I have yet to see an argument I consider valid as to why something should not be allowed in Wikipedia. --Matthewjhale

• Keep -Vivienne Dick is well worth keeping. Her films have been widely screened in alternative art spaces and 'underground' cinemas and she is well known in these circles and avant garde music circles as well. I have seen plenty of mistakes on IMDB; it's not always reliable and are resistant to make corrections, so I wouldn't judge her by that criterion. TheEmissary 22 June 2005
• Keep, notable. — mark ✎ 09:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 as recreation of "Anarchism (anti-state)" --cesarb 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet another fork from User:Hogeye. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (theory) --Xcali 05:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as I can tell this was just deleted, so presumably speedy as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:14, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 07:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unneeded fork. Anarchism is protected. Is someone trying to bypass that protection? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This new pair of articles, "movement" vs. "philosophy", finally makes some sense as a statement of the actual distinction being argued over, unlike some of the other forked article titles. The articles should be edited in accordance with this distinction, so they become more different from one another (removing movement-specific stuff from the philosophy article and philosophical stuff from the movement one), and the main anarchism article made into a disambig page (merged with Anarchism (disambiguation) pointing prominently to both of these (not buried in a long list of schools of anarchism, etc.). *Dan* 11:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of "Anarchism (socialist)" --cesarb 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet another fork from User:Hogeye. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (theory) --Xcali 05:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as I can tell this was just deleted, so presumably speedy as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:15, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete, we've already got Anarchism. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. JamesBurns 10:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've been generally opposed to all of these forked articles on anarchism, many of which have titles that make no sense -- ("Anarchism (anti-state)"? As opposed to "Anarchism (pro-state)"?) -- but, for a change, this one actually serves a logical purpose. It discusses anarchism as a specific social/political movement, which is the meaning of anarchism that is intended by the various leftist anarchists around here. This is distinct from anarchism as a generic term for a variety of anti-state philosophies, which may or may not be part of this movement. If this article is kept, then both this and the Anarchism (philosophy) article should be edited in accordance with this distinction so that they don't remain near-clones of one another; stick to description and history of the movement here, without so much philosophy, while removing movement-specific info from the other article and including more on non-movement anarchist philosophies. *Dan* 11:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Only three Google hits for this term, and two of these both reference the book "Greek Wonder Tales" by Lucy M. J. Garnett. RickK 05:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Seems like a hoax. -- Natalinasmpf 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Completely wrong. Ancient Greek didn't have /Dh/ for one thing. Geogre 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Btw 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete smells like a hoax. I've read a lot of Greek mythology and never heard of them. One wonders where Ms. Garnett came up with this. --Etacar11 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. On the 3rd link if you google for the term, it is said that "Dragon Δράκος Dhrakos". So the article may be factually wrong. Otherwise, it must just be an obscure term for Dragon in Greek. Any Greek speaker here? -Hmib 20:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Δ is the greek capital d, which would make it Drakos rather than Dhrakos. Implies 'drake' (aka dragonling or lesser dragon, depending on which mythology or fiction you're reading), but the lack of substance and lack of justification leads me to vote delete unless it's made more informative. --Firien 23:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think they are implying that rho was pronounced [hr]. platypeanArchcow 00:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

After weeding out its own hits and what I believe are unrelated items (the original author's site and a Sega game), I've got about 1000 hits. Alexa says it's got a rank around 450,000. I'd say it's just another web site. --Xcali 05:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When creating this, I was trying to follow the structure followed in the original BattleTech article, giving the various spinoff lines (MechWarrior, MechWarrior: Dark Age) their own pages. My apologies if this was considered bad form. —ATimson 06:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I looked in my World Book volumes, and this esteemed Encyclopedia saw fit to immortalize for posterity, the web sites of fans of fiction. Then I cancelled my subsciption.--0001 14:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fanfic site, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 18:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a web directory.-Splash 02:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 4, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

~300 Google hits. Alexa rank 5,000,000+. I'd say it isn't notable. --Xcali 05:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep (and send to cleanup). As their website says: "The ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives [ONE Archives] houses the world's largest research library on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered heritage and concerns." This is a notable archive of historical material that would not necessarily "score" well using either Google, or Alexa, especially since very little of the collection is online. It should be kept. BlankVerse ∅ 10:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, on notability grounds. --Scimitar 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm not against our having an article on it, but not if we can't assess its notability. Those in favor of keeping it, please give us some indication that the site's claims are true, that it has some traffic. The Alexa rank won't really lie in this case. It doesn't appear that, as a web site, it's particularly used. Geogre 18:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's a statement about its status at USC. There's a contact email address and phone number for a Lynn Sipe at USC. Seems straightforward enough. It's ridiculous to expec that an archive of this nature would have a high Alexa ranking. It isn't a popular media website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be trivial. CalJW 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the claims are true. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, trivially so. James F. (talk) 22:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There seems to be some confusion here. As I understand it, the article is not about the website, it is about the archives. My understanding has been that Alexa rankings are primarily used to judge the notability of web sites per se. The fact that the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library website has an Alexa ranking of 1,503,886 does not comment on the notability of the library, for example. --Tabor 00:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:BlankVerse. JamesBurns 06:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason for delete. Needs a bit of work though. AlexR 11:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Entry appears to meet definition of a "vanity page", given tone and content. Mostly anonymous edits, probably being maintained by the person in question. 24.91.173.75 05:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Person appears to be notable, and it is not true that the page has mostly anonymous edits. Not to mention this page has been around since at least early 2002. Eric119 06:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment.
    • He's not even remotely notable; he's a college drop-out who worked a couple of jobs and attended a few conferences. He happened to manage an ISP that failed, which in and of itself would have never been heard of had it not been for his involvement in the whole disaster known as Sealand, which itself would have been unheard of had it not been mentioned in Wired, also nothing more than hype.
    • Sorry about the confusion on the anonymous edit bits, you're right. Side note- although we can't see history prior to 2002, I strongly suspect he was the author, and he's quite aware of its existence, having edited the page himself, and linked to it from his Wikipedia user page (which is where all this belongs)
    • The age of the page has no relevancy; it is still a vanity page.
    • The article makes claims which are unsupported (such as establishing Iraq's post-war internet infrastructure, highly dubious). Numerous mentions of OpenDBS, which has not been implemented(google for OpenDBS returns a 'coming soon' page).
      • So be bold and remove them, explaining the lack of verifiability in your edit comments and (if necessary) on the talk page. Uncle G 12:44, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • The majority of links to the page are from Sealand-related pages, or articles which mention Sealand.
      • Degree of internal linking is not a good metric to use for this sort of thing. Uncle G 12:44, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • The purpose of the article seems purely to mention his e-cash ventures (again, Vanity Page!)
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.173.75 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2005 Jun 20
• Keep. Kinger414 06:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the Sealand connection makes him note-worthy, at least while-ever the Sealand business continues to "bubble under" as, variously, a micronation with a geographical location, a data-hub, and an alleged scam. --Simon Cursitor 07:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep borderline notable. JamesBurns 10:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, notability not established, and I just snipped links to his e-mail address. This is rather obviously written by Ryan himself. I don't see how being a microcitizen is notable. Radiant_>|< 10:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme haste. If the is encyclopaedic, recruitment firms have got piles CV's on thier desk we could be using to give wiki a better reputation than even 'World Book'.--0001 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. --Xcali 14:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 23:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• keep but please clean up too Yuckfoo 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep Has had noteable involvement in privacy, ecash and strange other ventures around. Worth watching, worth keeping. - Also note the activity on this in one day... maxinux 02:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep if there is a major cleanup to move a lot of the vanity content. I have tried an edit to consolidate around a simple descriptive bio and notable projects with hopefully less repetition, but it needs more. frankh 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I found the article useful, even though a bit of a stub... Cleanup. "He happened to manage an ISP that failed" (above). This is incorrect. Havenco is still operating and setting up new servers (I can personally confirm this as of today!). jebba 23:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am the referenced party. I don't really care much either way, but this article exists mainly as a link from Sealand former HavenCo, and for Iraq stuff. I do support the edits to make the entry more encyclopaedic (which in this case is mainly making it shorter and more concise/factual). My edits to date on this article mainly consisted of changing specific details (like an old email address being updated), or other specific minor edits. rdl 20:00, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is all over the net. Somebody I would come looking to Wikipedia to find out about. Jeshii June 29, 2005 12:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Two Google hits (both unrelated) for "Atlanta Torment", [9]. Unverifiable, Delete. JamesBurns 06:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Kinger414 06:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there must be tens of thousands of local amatuer sports teams across the globe. The last time I looked, encyclopedia's were not phone books.--0001 13:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: We're tormented enough without including rec-league teams. Geogre 18:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep though I only found 2 Google Hits, there were about 1,000 AOL hits, I think that's suitable. MLSfan0012
  • Not true. Google has two hits that are unrelated. AOL search produces only one hit, not 1000, see [10]. Also why are claiming credit for articles as User:MLSfan0012 when that account's contribution history indicates only two edits? JamesBurns 05:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually that one AOL hit is in fact zero AOL hits. The website is a wikipedia mirror. JamesBurns 05:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable fantasy team. Megan1967 05:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, there are now three related articles on VFD:
  • Atlanta Torment
  • Omaha Jets
  • B.C. Navajo Nation
• None seem to be verifiable, and the only mentions of Outdoor Basketball Association on Google seem to be for some local Minnesota thing. I suspect the whole shebang is a hoax, and that virtually all the articles linked from Outdoor Basketball Association ought to be deleted too. sjorford →•← 12:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've now listed all the other articles at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Outdoor Basketball Association. sjorford →•← 13:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if it were realy notable, the arcticle would have content to support it. --Eoghanacht 2005 June 30 18:01 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zero Google hits for "B.C. Navajo Nation" [11] and "Basketball Club Navajo Nation" [12]. Unverifiable, Delete. JamesBurns 06:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Kinger414 06:22, 20 Jun 2005

• Keep, needs more information...may be a typo error. If not a typo...it could be vanity.DCUnitedRock23
  • user:DCUnitedRock23's only second edit. Megan1967 05:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, vanity...or possibly an attempt to try to make the red links in O.B.A. turn blue. If thats the case...Keep it then. MLSfan0012

(UTC)

• • no contribution history by user:MLSfan0012. Megan1967 05:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• /me looks around for someone trying to change it to B.C.E. Navajo Nation... --Tabor 00:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable fantasy team. Megan1967 05:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• See also several other articles at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Outdoor Basketball Association. sjorford →•← 13:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was The vote was 16/5/5 - I've found nothing worthy of merging to "exploding animals" as there's already a listbox on it... so I've gone ahead and deleted the pages. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Exploding animals. Note that this was speedied and VFU'ed because it was considered an improper speedy. See the talk page for old discussion thereon. Radiant_>|< 09:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, my vote is delete (yes, I know I created one of the lists). However, let's review the situation we have here: we now have one of the articles on VFD and VFU. At one point the list article was recreated with an angry blast at the administrator who deleted it, but I notice that Tony has undeleted it. So the VFU is now no longer valid, yet is still listed. I created a new article, which is now being voted on VFD. There is also a category for exploding animals, along with a template, which has an incorrect redirect template Template:Exploding mammals (my fault). The normal template is on WP:TFD. Accordingly, I have also been accused of posturing by User:Pcb21, who says I haven't helped make whales a serious topic of conversation, my article about Exploding whales (possibly) having eclipsed Sperm whale and Gray whale. I plead innocence!

It appears that whales and animals aren't the only things that have exploded here. It appears that the entirety of Wikipedia has gone, quite literally, mad. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists are useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I note that this page has just undergone a lengthy and detailed undelete process. It therefore seems odd to find it re-listed for deletion. Unless, of course, the Cabal don't like it.--Simon Cursitor 09:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it is procedural to list an article on VFD if it passes VFU. This is because VFU is about process (this was undeleted because the process was deemed invalid) and VFD is about content (this may still be considered lack of content by some people). TINC. HAND. Radiant_>|< 09:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • In practice, VfUs are not just about process, they are heavily influenced by VFD considerations. 10:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) this remark was made by User:Kappa. Radiant_>|< 10:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless there are unusual circumstances, the last step of the undeletion process is to list the undeleted article on VFD. The reason this one was undeleted is a common one: It was argued that this was an improper speedy deletion, and that it should be subject to the full VFD treatment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I restored the thing as an invalid speedy. I ignored the VfU as it was superfluous--the article having been deleted without a proper VfD. This VfD is procedurally correct and should have been tried first. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with the category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, lists are never redundant with categories. Kappa 10:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes... "Lists are often redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the respective category.". Radiant_>|< 10:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've seen it :) Kappa 11:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nomination. JamesBurns 10:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Kappa is wrong. Some lists are redundant with categories. This is one. The distinction between "military uses" and "just your random animal exploding" isn't enough added value to justify this. (I'm not even talking about that hideous navigation box we also have). JRM · Talk 10:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. As for the keep voters, which one do you want to keep? The content of the two listed above is identical. Postdlf 10:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously one should redirect to the other, I don't mind which. Kappa 12:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both into exploding mammal (which should be moved back to exploding animal). Category and list can co-exist (hey, that rhymes!) sjorford →•← 11:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge List of animals that explode into List of exploding animals. I don't see any reason for lists and categories not to co-exist. Why is it never the category that's redundant? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because if it were, it would be on WP:CFD rather than here. Radiant_>|< 12:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• merge, redirect. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the threshold for cruft is so low, I can't see how we can delete anything with real information. Guettarda 12:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by MacGyverMagic . I never realized there were so many exploding animals out there. This opens up a whole new world for me! 23skidoo 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How is the "Other" section (which will likely always be the largest section) useful or encyclopedic? If I shove an explosive into it, I can make just about any animal explode. --Xcali 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The criteria for addition to the list should be something similar to those (currently) found on exploding mammal. No vote -- Jonel | Speak 17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Xcali's wise note - as long as we're including all animals that will explode if stuffed with explosives, it might as well be List of animals; if not, it's going to be an awful short list anyway. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:40, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to exploding animal, after that redirect to exploding mammal becomes the main article, as per User:Sjorford. Note: The original speedy was appropriate, as per the actual content of the article at that time. func(talk) 15:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete this is silly. Dunc|☺ 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though it needs a title change, since blowing up an animal doesn't make it an "animal that explodes" per se. --Tothebarricades 20:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merge per MGM. --Randy 23:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with exploding animal, which should not, actually, be a redirect to exploding mammal which should, itself, be a subtitle within exploding animal rather than the main article itself. Tomer ^TALK 00:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless article, could be expanded to include just about every animal that could ingest my dynamite. Midster 02:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Everything blowed up real good betimes. This is just one of those "funny" lists. I'm sure they're enjoyable to write, but they're of no use in reading. We can have a category, or a list, but not a category and two lists. Duplicate material that should stay gone. Geogre 04:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both - they are redundant with the category - Skysmith 07:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete its as sensible as List of animals that blink and List of animals that can lick their nose. ~~~~ 17:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by others. Say, folks, did you know the Fascinating Fun Fact that you can take a live sponge, force it through a sieve with a scrubbing action (I see our article suggests the use of a blender), until it is decomposed into individual cells and becomes a tank full of discolored water, and the cells will gradually rejoin and reconstitute themselves into a live sponge again? Does that count as an animal that explodes? Or as an animal that cannot be successfully exploded? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That counts as an animal being forced through a sieve. *sigh* 80.229.14.246 17:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • List of animals that can survive being forced through a sieve ...
• Delete. Lists are evil. --Conti|✉ 22:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the original article was never redundant with the category and would be doing much better in this VfD
• Delete. Redundant with category. — Phil Welch 03:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - for the people that are still voting delete, where does that leave exploding animal? Either vfd it, or allow the list to be merged to that page (where it belongs). sjorford →•← 08:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I just have to point this out, if no one else has. If this list is kept, shouldn't we add "Human"? After all, we are mammals, and therefore animals. And I'm sure many, many more humans have exploded than whales or bats or chickens combined. Just a thought. wikinick 30 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep, and nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

With apologies to the anonymous author, I have doubts about the veracity of this article, as the statement that the barony was created in 1927 conflicts with the date given at http://hereditarytitles.com/Page67.htm.
It is also unclear to me what encyclopaedic value the names of 4 (3 presumably deceased) Englishmen who happened at different times to hold an hereditary title have, especially as the present policy of the British New Labour (Socialist) government is to abolish all such titles. Simon Cursitor 09:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If they're dead, they're harmless, in os far as we know that someone else must have written the article for them. Physchim62 16:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all peerage titles. If the article is incorrect, it should be fixed. See also Category:Baronies. -- Jonel | Speak 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We still have articles on Kings of France I believe even though the French monarchy has been abolished. Maintaining a historical record is part of the business of an encyclopedia. PS New Labour isn't socialist, that's what's "new" about it, and it isn't abolishing the titles, just the hereditary seats in the House of Lords. CalJW 19:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we have all Peerage titles. James F. (talk) 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Until recently, the holders of the title would have been eligible as members of the House of Lords so they would have been notable under this category. Apart from this, the first Baron presumably did something notable to earn the titles. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Government's not abolishing the titles at all, they just can't sit or vote in the House of Lords anymore. The titles will still be passed down generations. Ooooh, how Tony Blair would dislike being called a socialist!-Splash 02:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Given the above, I am content to withdraw the nomination. On two points of philosophical contention, that a man's ancestor has done something notable does not, IMHO, render his descendants till the end of time notable. Indeed, I can see an argument that, unless they do something notable, they devalue their ancestor to the point where his/her notability may be smirched. The instance of the 7th earl of Lucan springs to mind. Secondly, anent Splash's point, I would recommend that he wait and see before being so certain that the titles will still be passed down. Once the House of Lords has been "reformed" (read abolished and replaced by a Senate), the hereditary titles will cease to have any function. Moreover it is a moot point as to whether English titles will be recognised in teh new United States of Europe (once Sr.Blair has had it explained to him that Prime Minister is elective not hereditary). --Simon Cursitor 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge to Military slang. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a military slang database. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, but only if it gets a damn good rewrite, soldier. Proto 10:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Military slang in much condensed version. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 12:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Mgm. --Scimitar 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Mgm, — RJH 15:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Humourous, rather than encyclopaedic. illWill 15:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Mgm. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitionary. That seems like the right place for it. Almafeta 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not just a term in the US military, btw!-Splash 02:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• If and only if deleted, BJAODN. — Phil Welch 03:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 19:09 (UTC)

This seems like an advertisement. NymphadoraTonks 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Advert for some "Woman-to-Woman BDSM" group. Delete, and maybe redirect to London Irish or exile. Dunc|☺ 11:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all advertisements. Redirect to Exiles (comics)--Scimitar 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. --Etacar11 22:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if cleaned up and expanded. JamesBurns 06:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

Incorrect information, 'Gung Ho' is from the Chinese for "to work together". Dictionary.com proves this. This user has tampered with other pages including writing a full "biography" in my user page. Speedy deletion? Kinger414 06:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The mention of "Gung Ho" makes me tend to believe user:Kinger 414 when he alleges that this is tampering. Unless verified delete. Or revert, if appropriate. --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taebong, which contains quite a bit of information on the real Gung Ye. -- Visviva 16:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redir Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consenus --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Tagged as a speedy as advertising, and granted the article does read like advertising. However, I'm submitting this to VFD instead because hospitals are often kept, and there does seem to be information here from which a proper article may be extracted. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems to refer to branch of a larger Ho Chi Minh City hospital, which itself may warrant an article, but this medical clinic? no. But the fact essential health services are returning to post-war Vietnam is valuable.--0001 13:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, international hospital in a developing country. Kappa 22:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Tagged for a speedy but appears to be a real place, so I'm listing it on VFD. Usually I would say "keep" without hesitation, but contained in the article is "Teens in Lawncrest spend their time hanging out and doing drugs." I am therefore a bit suspicious of the remaining content as well. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup all real localities, but edit any unverifiable content. Google showed me the map, so I am convinced. Xoloz 07:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup per Xoloz -Tadanisakari 09:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete completely. Does every suburb of every city on the globe need a wiki page? --0001 13:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - they don't need pages, but consensus has been that real geographic locations are worthy of pages if said pages are created. -- Jonel | Speak 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- and cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 13:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - If Lawncrest is just a neighborhood of Philadelphia, it should be moved to Lawncrest, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - as per neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Canoga Park, Los Angeles, California. --FCYTravis 17:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, wikipedia would be better if it had pages on every suburb of every city on the globe. Kappa 18:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this one definietly Yuckfoo 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is a legit articleGateman1997 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep -FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Tagged for a speedy as recreation of previously VFDed content. However the content of the original article was

Revision3 Studios is the company behind the videozines Systm (http://www.systm.org) and thebroken (http://www.thebroken.org). Kevin Rose, a former personality of TechTV (now G4 (television)) is one of the members of this company. Jay Adelson, former Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Equinix, Inc. (http://www.equinix.com), was recently named chairman and CEO of Revision3 Studios.

(with some links which I have not added here) This article is much larger. However, I don't really think the company is notable, so I will say delete. The original VFD discussion is here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Whereas Google previously had a somewhat embarrassing total of zero hits, it now has 149. Ah, but it shows just six hits as representative of the whole lot, and these are blog entries, publicity announcements/puffs, etc. I'm underwhelmed. Delete. -- Hoary 07:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete once again... how many companies are registered across the globe? Come and get yourself immortalized on the web for free. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia--0001 14:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I created this article to merge information from Systm and thebroken. Formerly, the article for Systm was VfD'd, and called a "merge and redirect". It was redirected to Kevin Rose at the time, but that makes no sense, because he is only one-fifth of the team behind the series. Even if you don't think the company itself is notable, this article should exist for its information on Systm and thebroken, which are notable. --taestell 18:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An article should exist with information about Systm, either here or the recently deleted Systm article. --Knio 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin Rose. --Mrmiscellanious 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important company that produces many popular videozines with a very large audience. --Salvag 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm tempted to say that media companies presently producing content are definitionally worth an article if someone writes one. It can be very difficult to find NPOV information about media companies. --TreyHarris 17:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Salvag. —Markaci 2005-06-22 T 17:47 Z
• Keep. This article has info that does not belong in the Kevin Rose article. Personally I would say split into Systm but that page was already VFD'd and lost. Possibly merge The Broken into it, but definitely keep. --TexasDex 18:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hoary. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Taking into consideration Hoary's view, I'm also considering the fact that this is needed in lieu with other articles. Hence, I'll sit on the fence, and maybe a bit to the side, with a weak keep. -- Natalinasmpf 22:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has different information and refers to both Systm and thebroken which Kevin Rose is only a part of. --AyrtonSenna
• Keep per taestell. --Randy 23:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, company has created Systm and thebroken, both of which seem to have a large number of viewers.--Matteh (talk) 03:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Systm and The Broken are notable and have a large viewing audience. I see no reason for deletion. It is not advertising. — Peter McGinley 07:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article was initally referred to the Kevin Rose article. Since Rose is not a whole or even a majority of the crew behind the studio, merging the two would be an inaccuracy. I see no reason to delete the article. Keep - Razer64 06:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This VfD has been up for eight days now... two-thirds (12 out of 18) of the votes are "keep"... --65.185.15.125 28 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)
• Keep Systm got deleted and merge with Kevin Rose, however, this is a better place for it. I would further suggest that The Broken gets merged with this. Falcorian June 29, 2005 02:03 (UTC)
• Keep. With the high numbers of reported systm downloads, this company has a decent impression. --Sepht 4:45, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC) ...added at 03:47, June 29, 2005 by 68.121.166.105
  • Sepht, under whose name this vote was made (strangely, at the top, right in the middle of the preface by Sjakkalle), has a single contribution so far. -- Hoary June 29, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
• Keep This is quite a popular company. In fact I logged on to Wikipedia today just to look up Revision3 MrHate June 30, 2005 08:02 (UTC)
• Okay... This VfD is 10 days old now, and 70% (14 of 20) of the votes are "keep"... --taestell June 30, 2005 19:54 (UTC)
• Keep I've checked out the videos from systm and would rate them as well produced and equivalent to standard television. I am also familiar with 2 of the guys from TV shows they have been a part of in the past. I vote for keeping the site. June 30, 2005 ........... comment added at 00:34, 1 July 2005 by 65.35.88.234

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge and redirect --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion by an anonymous user with "fancruft" as the reason. That is not a speedy deletion criterion (and some would argue that it's not even a deletion criterion...) Unsure of whether this expression is notable enough to be included or maybe merged in to Ranma 1/2. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Ryoga Hibiki or keep. Kappa 07:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ryoga Hibiki . -- Lochaber 14:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Kappa. --Xcali 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ryoga Hibiki - Jack Cain

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. I have done no research as to whether this passes WP:MUSIC, but there are several google hits, and I suspect that he may do. No vote for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that Poltz indeed does pass WP:MUSIC, so I am voting keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. He appears to be completing a fairly extensive national tour of the United States [13]. That's sufficient for notability according to WP:MUSIC. Also, his CDs are available on amazon. Pburka 13:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this. There are plenty of forums for struggling musos to flog thier wares. This is an encyclopedia. Are my kids ever gonna turn in a paper on Steve Poltz, citing wiki as thier source?
  • This vote by 0001
• Strong Keep. He's rather well known, especially in Southern California and New York. He has toured internationally to support a platinum album with Jewel Kilcher, has co-written hit songs, has a fan club, and his musical style is unique. He's also appeared in at least one Music Video on MTV. If he doesn't match your criteria, I'd suggest you change it. It would be good to focus more on musical contribution rather than # of google hits (which are arbitrary and trend based I think.)
  • This vote by 205.132.149.222
  • 205.132.149.222 is me -> Alex Brennen
• keep see All music guide. Dunc|☺ 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep was part of post-metal big acoustic break through in the USA of the 90's... Dave Mathews, Jack Johnson...
  • This vote by 128.227.212.74
• Obvious keep. Meets notability standards. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Easily meets the standards outlined in WP:MUSIC -- Keep

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Tagged for a speedy with the reason "this is not an article or even a stub. Please try again with something that we can understand.". I think the article is about some trainyard in Toronto. Unsure of whether that is encyclopedic. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. More can be said about train yards than about many stations. Alternately merge with the line (Scarborough RT) if there's no potential for expansion. --SPUI (talk) 09:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SPUI. Kappa 10:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and either expand or merge into Scarborough RT (TTC) or McCowan (TTC). David Arthur 13:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SPUI. -- Jonel | Speak 17:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge; probably all of the "TTC Yards, Garages and Facilities" articles should be combined into a single article or just a section under Toronto Subway and RT. (For example, I once worked at TTC Greenwood Yard, but I probably couldn't come up with anything useful to add to that article.) Peter Grey 05:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy by an anon, but not a candidate. Some sort of scouting association. Unsure of notability. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Pony Express Council seems to be a subgroup of the Boy Scouts. Kinda notable. Camp Geiger seems to be a sub-division of Pony Express Council. Barely notable. But when it goes further down that that... unnotable. But otherwise has nothing wrong. -Hmib 08:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if we had an article on Camp Geiger, I'd say merge/redirect to that. -- Jonel | Speak 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Noteable Billhpike 03:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Noteable subject of interest and gives further information into naming of Kanas City Chiefs. BMb8609 03:55, Jun 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This group is noteable within the scouting community. HOWEVER, this article needs editing. There is already a better article on Bartle, etc. This article should focus on Mic-O-Say, its purpose and history. --Emb021 1 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
• Keep Should be referenced among scouting groups. Move Bartle specific infomration to H. Roe Bartle Page. Naraht 2 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and important BSA history. ike9898 July 2, 2005 17:16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Another page about another student. Googling suggests that this one really exists. He has deep thoughts, as carefully analyzed by one Ross Otto. Funnily enough, Google gives a grand number of zero hits for "Hector leano" "Ross Otto". Unverifiable. Let's wait till he's published some papers. -- Hoary 08:46, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable possibly student vanity. JamesBurns 10:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. I added his friend Ross Otto to VfD. --Etacar11 23:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity. Looks like these two friends thought they'd have a go....-Splash 01:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Was tagged as speedy, but found some google hits to suggest he might warrant inclusion at Asela Indika. May be notable blogger. Abstain. Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- unless notability is established, or userfy if preferred. -- Longhair | Talk 11:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My search shows 19 Google hits which is very, very, very low for a blogger. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity, and crap vanity at that. Bluemoose 13:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

Author offers no detail about the novels: Badlands redirects to the geological feature, and Badlands (movie) has a completely different storyline. Article is badly written, probably a hoax. Physchim62 12:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See Deathlands. Uncle G 12:55, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Comment: I found Deathlands later, but it doesn't change my view that Former United States is currently unsavable without a complete rewrite, if then. Physchim62 15:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Deletewith prejudice. You want me to go to the library and tell you where every fiction novel ever written was 'set' and make a wiki page? This is out of control...all fiction stories should have ONE page only. You Lord of the rings fan will kill me, but this isn't a facility for setting up in perpetuity the niche knowledge of fans of fantasy stories. Go make a web site on the actual web no one's stopping you.--0001 13:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper so it has space to tell me where every fiction novel ever written was set. Kappa 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly Merge with Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic science fiction or with the pages about the series of novels (if the article(s) exist). —Kjammer 18:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/merge per Kjammer. humblefool® 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete poor written fancruft. JamesBurns 06:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. Lots of bad spelling and can go into the Badlands article. --Pc13 19:07, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic list. the wub "?/!" 13:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs expanding but certainly encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just now I trawled the Category: Political books and listed all those that dealt wholly or mainly with Bush or his Presidency. As most of the conservative writers these days tend to be writing about the twin evils of liberalism and Islam, this may give the list a somewhat lopsided appearance. There aren't a lot of articles about hagiographies of Bush around, that I can see. I suggest that this could be remedied by writing such articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as lists go this one is fairly useful. Pburka 13:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Legit and useful list - if your concern is POV, then list the right-wing books as well. The solution to bias speeched is counter-bias, not censorship. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:05, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep, allow for expansion. -- Lochaber 14:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, enough there to be useful, enough books about Bush to be encyclopedic topic. In most cases I would have thought "Books about X" belong in the article on X but in the case of Bush where the article is so long, a separate article is justified. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but expand to more than a list of books, give both pro- and anti- and contrast their viewpoints, and talk about their social and political significance. Dunc|☺ 16:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. - This information should go on the George W. Bush article. This is why we have References/Further reading sections. --Tothebarricades 20:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That article is rather large at the moment. It's probably better to have this list. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - just an afterthought - shouldn't this be a "List of..."; or if not, shouldn't the article delve a bit into the fairly recent phenomena of dozens of critical (and some laudatory) books being written about sitting presidents? I may be too young to speak wisely on this, but it seems to me the phenomenon only began when Reagan was in office. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:57, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Worthwhile spin-off of the main article. In some cases there are simply too many works to comfortably accommodate in an article's references list. I agree the list should include pro- and con- books to be NPOV. 23skidoo 22:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 23:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge contents into appropriate articles and delete. Separating the references from the article is a bad precedent. If an article is too large, the remedy should be to split up the article, each piece carrying appropriate references. An unannotated bibliography does not stand alone as an encyclopedic article. --Tabor 00:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly...I was just imagining having hundreds of "Books about" pages. Messy, messy, messy. There are many topics that have a more extensive literature than Mr. Bush (French Revolution, World War II, Chess?). It is indeed a very bad precedent, and I don't see why a long references section is necessarily a bad thing. --Tothebarricades 01:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It seems unlikely that all these books are actually being used as "references" in the GWB article. Books that are actually used to verify facts in that article should also be mentioned there, but as I understand it this is a general list of books about George W. Bush, not even implying that anyone here has actually turned a single page. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:03, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge into relevant articles if someone has the energy. I generally dislike lists and prefer categories but this one would set a precedent for lists of books about everything, and there are books about everything.-Splash 02:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why would this be a bad thing? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Because if you want a list of books about George W. Bush or chess or sausages or whatever, go to Amazon.com. (other online and offline bookstores are available yadda yadda) the wub "?/!" 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ...or Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazon.com is great, but it has no ambition to be NPOV and I can't edit its pages. Kappa 22:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazon strives to achieve NPOV by balancing - which is an acceptable way to do things on the Wikipedia too. It does a more thorough job of it, and maintains its NPOV better by adding everything within a narrow remit (books only) with nothing taken away, reverted, blanked, scrambled or vandalized. Such flexibility is important in WP, as is a wider remit, but there's no need to duplicate other, far more authoritative and comprehensive sources. WP:NOT a web directory, and by the same token it should not try to be a ISBN listing service. -Splash 00:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • You just made that up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ummm....? Ok, it's not Amazon's stated policy, but they must surely try to get as many books to sell as they can and they don't seem to have a POV to push in the meantime. Was that what you meant?-Splash 02:35, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant that the statement "Amazon strives to achieve NPOV by balancing" was a fabrication. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose they do it as a matter of explicit policy, no, but as a matter of implicit final-result I'm fairly sure they're pretty NPOV. -Splash 13:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A very encyclopedic list, could use expanding though. Kaibabsquirrel 22:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to agreeing with Tothebarricades, I don't think that "about George W. Bush" is a specific enough topic to keep it from falling within category 2 of WP:NOT An Indiscriminate Collection of Information. As previously noted, "Books About George W. Bush" would make a great category, but as a list, it doesn't work because it doesn't type the book: are they purposefully pro- or anti-Bush, are they about one term or both, do they even address his Presidency at all or just his Governorship of Texas, do they address one specific policy/event only, etc? To even be a useful list, the list would have to get broken up, and I don't feel right voting to keep an article that'd have to become nothing but a categorized list of books under such an "umbrella" topic, especially not when that list's better placed in the George W. Bush article and best placed in the form of a category. The Literate Engineer 04:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but annotate the list with a short comment for each book, and remove all the redlinks. I think the Literate Engineer is wrong in saying this would make a great Category. The big trouble with Categories is that they can only list books that have Wikipedia articles about them. It couldn't include books of borderline notability: important enough to be listed, but not important enough to be the subject of a whole article. And, or course, it's even harder to anotate a category than a list. Face it, categories are totally useless for this sort of thing. Give me lists any time. — P Ingerson (talk) 11:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete.

Vanity page. Page history contains some more useful material, but still borderline non-notable. Firien 13:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP I totally disagree with the above. This page is an informative article on someone who has achieved much in Surrey Police. It's people like Rowan Cole who have helped their community achieve that deserve a page on this website, not merely those who are A-List celebrities. This page should not be deleted. remark by User:62.171.198.5
• Weak delete, notability not established, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< 14:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP This page shows that many in the community have a lot of respect for Rowan Cole. He is a notable figure within his said community and to delete this page is to delete the work of the 'little man'. This is not a VANITY page but more one of what one person can achieve..(preceding unsigned comment by  Trust2005 15:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)).

previous attribution removed by 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs), now reinstated. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. He's 17, and seems likely to have a future career involving the police. If he does something larger, later in life, absolutely include him. For now, I don't think he meets our notability requirements. --Scimitar 16:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete born 1988? Getting a few awards and serving as a police cadet is not sufficient notability for a 17-year-old. Few Google hits, mostly for other peole with the same name.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Actually with regards to the above comment when seraching through Yahoo and or Google you get quite a few hits. This chap has done great things for his community and at such a young age, it is amazing and this article should be kept. unsigned vote made by anonUser:80.3.32.9 --Scimitar 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that he has made valued contributions; but on the other hand, so have millions of other people. I've done and raised a huge lot for the communities I've been in, supported by bundles of sporting and musical achievement; but I don't feel it's encyclopedia material. By all means, it's User Page material, but the work he has done, while useful, doesn't yet reach beyond that home town. Every single cadet team was set up by someone. I feel the wording there is a little harsh, but it's the point I'm trying to make. Eventually, I'll set up my own user page properly with a bio of sorts, but it'll be a user page rather than an encyclopedia article. --Firien 17:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and/or non-notable. this news article was the only thing I could find on Google. His "achievement" is the equivalent of an Eagle Scout public service project. Good for him, but it's non-notable. PS Keep votes with IP addresses and no account ... don't count. Also, wikipedia is not a who's who of great people... otherwise we could list all our best friends and favorite uncles. MPS 17:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also pointing out that the first two keep votes are from IPs who have provided the material for the page in question. --Firien 17:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The site is meant to include information to help and advise people from all over, one does not have to have an OBE or Knighthood. Rowan Cole is a topic that has been researched and to delete this topic would deprive the hundreds on British Police Cadets whom wish to learn about the origins of its creation. Perhaps all that is needed is a rewording of the article!!!! In Britain history is very important and one of the things any cadet learns is their institutions history. Don't delete without thinking.unsigned comment made by anonUser:80.3.32.9. Sign your votes or comments with 4 ~ --Scimitar 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but if you're looking for the history of the British Police Cadets, you go looking under British Police Cadets. --Firien 17:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You may not have known but each Cadet unit in the UK is created in a different way, so there needs to be seperate articles for seperate forces. User:80.3.32.9
      • So where are these articles, and why don't they link to or from the page in question? --Firien 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. CDC (talk) 19:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This article presents a view of England today and what is achieved by British Police forces and the ability of modern democracy to prevail.unsigned comment from 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs) — P Ingerson (talk) 20:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP This article should be kept because this scheme that was created was the first of its kind. This means that to delete it would be depriving people of knowledge which is true. If we were to delete this we should ask ourselves why a lot of other articles are on this site. This artilce is extremely relevant because it is a scheme which has benefitted the public by people who are of my age. Teenagers today do not have an excellent image. It is nice to see that young adults or teenagers are trying to eliminate the "yobbish" image which a majority of the public hold today thanks to the media. Well done Rowan for a smashing scheme. I would also like to remind you that Rowan had won a "High Sheriff Of Surrey Award" For his contribution. The "High Sheriff Of Surrey Award" is one of the most prestigous awards to be one. I leave you with this one question. How many other people do you know that hold an award like that? We must remember that Rowan's contribution to the public is nationally recognised. Therefore because of it must be recognised on Wikipedia. unsigned vote from 172.202.180.114 (talk · contribs) — P Ingerson (talk) 20:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity and sockmagnet. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete kill th eocoskputppets. Dunc|☺ 20:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, non-notable. --Tothebarricades 20:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Honestly, some of the above votes are a bit hyperbolic. "The ability of modern democracy to prevail?" If the new cadet model is so great and emulatable, why don't you write about it in a British Police Cadets article? You can tell us all about the differences between the different cadet programs, and communities *around the world* would benefit from your service to humanity. Maybe if you set a sufficient context regarding the cadet system, voters will realize how truly important and notable Mr. Rowan's actions were. MPS 20:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly why dont we link this article to that and secondly one is not qualified to comment on other forces when one is only fimilar with Surrey. remark from 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs)
    • Maybe if you were more familiar with Surrey you would realize that it has "one of the lowest crime rates in the country" [14] and so the job of the police cadets there isn't that hard. Also, what the *heck* is a scheme? The article mentins it like fifty times. MPS 21:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • How dare you make that arrogant comment, perhaps it is because the Police and others working so hard that crime is low. You arrogant . ... remove that comment at once, you obviously have no idea what your talking about. As for the article it should stay. remark from 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs)
      • Yeah... no offense to MPS but that was a tad demeaning. But as to 80.3.32.9, please note WP:Importance item 5. I don't think that person has enough reach as of yet to qualify for his own article. Frankly, most 17 year-olds, never mind everyone else, haven't really had enough time to establish notability worthy of an Encyclopedia article. The awards listed also seem kind of generic in the sense that a lot of people have similar awards and there is nothing really to distinguish this person from the rest of society in general. There are a lot of unsung heroes out there that save cats from trees or volunteer their time to the community but that doesn't qualify an article for them. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • You are saying I overstated the truth? You are saying I took a fact that is technically true and tacked on superfluous conclusions about its meaning and significance? I guess you are right that it should be removed... He who has ears let him hear. MPS 13:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment A quick skim through the history file shows that there are a set of IPs (User:172.202.180.114, User:80.3.32.9, User:62.171.198.5) and one registered user (Trust2005) which are providing 'all' the keep votes. Their contribution history shows that other than the first, all have been involved in editing the Rowan_Cole article, and the first itself has only made contributions to this votes page as of time of posting. While the "High Sheriff of Surrey Award" sounds impressive, and does justify the question as above "how many other people do you know that hold an award like that?" it still begs the question of what the award actually means? I can happily claim that I have Sterling Achievement Awards in the Field of Excellence, but by not providing any further information on any such award it becomes a shell. I would be happy to see a British Police Cadets article, especially if it contained information on how to set up something similar, or gave something more informative about the Cadets rather than what we see at the moment; if the item is notable or significantly informative, then that provides a base for relevant information about Rowan Cole. However before that article has substance the Rowan Cole article remains a vanity page.

• Unless I am mistaken, an anonymous comment. --Simon Cursitor 13:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Eek, a threat! I'm so scared! The police will come and get me! ...Delete, take it to a group that cares - like the local newspaper. humblefool® 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've never heard of him. Hiding 23:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and definitely delete once they sockpuppet. Surrey would be ashamed as would the police cadets. Obvious next sentence omitted. -Splash 02:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as seems there seems not to be enough importance to this person and/or his actions to justify a Wikipedia article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable cadet. JamesBurns 06:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - possibly commendable person but also one of the many, not notable as of yet at the very least. Behaviour and hyberpole of "supporters" just worsens the image of the person concerned and is rather suspicious - Skysmith 08:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - You cannot delete this page. This page has only been on Wikipedia for a few months, and it would stupid to delete it already. The whole point of Wikipedia should be to have as much infomation as possible. In addition, Rowan Cole has done great deals for the community in Surrey and his Cadet Force has set an example for others across the UK. He has also recieved far more awards than most people do in their lifetime, and he deserves to be recognised. Wikipedia is not 'Who's Who', it is not meant to list only the rich, famous and those with MBEs after their names!! Deleting Rowan Cole's article would be like deleting the work of the little man!! acswanman
• Note - The IP address which often features on this page is from a public computer. This means that it is more than one person who is adding comments, not the same person each time!
• Delete - and adding info about him to as many other Wikipedia pages as possible, as at least one person seems to be doing, is not a good way to establish notability. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the sockpuppets continue to add nnanity to Hazel Blears in an attempt to give the Rowan Cole page some links-from. Reversion wars are boring.
• Delete vanity. As an aside I note that the IP who has been adding this to Hazel Blears has also vandalised my userpage a couple of times today. Morwen - Talk 13:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Qwghlm 14:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. He's got plenty of time to do something encyclopedia-notable yet. Oh, and also take a close look at Surrey Police Community Support Cadets and Surrey Police Community Support Students, both of which seem to have been created in order to support the existence of this vanity page. -- The Anome 15:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Morwen is being so hypocritical. She accuses Rowan Cole's page of vanity, look at her userpage. Does anyway care if she is a LibDem (poor her) or if she is an atheist. If she wants people to know that create her own website, no one on Wikipedia really cares. And she should get a life instead of deleting articles and parts of articles, shouldn't you be at work???

• There is, of course, a big difference between a User page and an article. --OpenToppedBus - Talk 15:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• That's missing the point. Morwen accuses Rowan Cole of vainity, pot calling kettle black in my eyes. I have a feeling Morwen, OpenToppedBus and many others are just jealous they haven't done anything to warrant an article!!!!

• Delete. Vanity. He's got plenty of time to do something encyclopedia-notable yet. Oh, and also take a close look at Surrey Police Community Support Cadets and Surrey Police Community Support Students, both of which seem to have been created in order to support the existence of this vanity page. -- The Anome 15:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• I began a sockpuppetry dossier at User:212.85.12.211. MPS 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • A 'sockpuppetry dossier'!!! Why don't you listen to yourself!!!!!
• Note that many unsigned notes above are work of User:Acswanman. If he is connected to blanking of Morwen's user page (and he at least defends the act) that constitutes vandalism. Anyone blocked him yet? Those who have created a full userpage do not claim to be notable. And if I met this Rowan Cole right now, I would be very suspicious of him or at least mention these events - his "friends" do not exactly improve his image with these acts. Policeman's "friends" disrupting wikipedia? - Skysmith 16:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In this edit, [15], User:Acswanman goes as far as to delete a vote! Morwen - Talk 08:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:VAIN. Hall Monitor 22:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Surrey Police Community Support Students (which is being voted for deletion as we speak, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Surrey_Police_Community_Support_Students). Rowan is not yet notable outside this project, which has a history and a future outside of him (though the article as it stands doesn't really reflect this). Doing one cool (or in this case, sketchy) project doesn't make notability. Bubamara 29 June 2005 10:06 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, make that a "merge relevant info into British Police Cadets". Bubamara 29 June 2005 10:15 (UTC)
• After due consideration and a discussion with Rowan Cole, he has asked me to delete the page as he felt it made him feel uncomfortable and he also felt the page was premature. He also has asked me to pass on messages of thanks to those who voted to keep the page and to send also send his regards to those who did not. (unsigned comment by 80.3.32.9)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

This isn't so much a Vote for Deletion as a request for euthanasia. This article serves no purpose, it has no context, if anyone wants to keep it they should clean it up themselves. Physchim62 13:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Seems to be a genuine political party with some historic significance. See [16] for instance. Pburka 13:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost speedy with its lack of content. JamesBurns 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable. —Seselwa 20:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Improper vfd nomination. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 20:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)

Made up holiday with a spam link. After patiently waiting for anything to refute this view, now it's time to delete this. Awolf002 13:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete how can it's claimed anti-commercialization stance be achieved with 'stores selling anti-valentines day' cards? John Sands wins either way. --0001 13:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, neologism. -- Natalinasmpf 15:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Compare Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/St Skeletor's Day. Uncle G 16:09, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Move to Wiktionary. I disagree with unofficial holiday, but the phenomenon does exist. Peter Grey 05:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was transwiki. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)

Is this absolutely necessary? Apart from being well over 200kb in size, it's just a (very long) table of the position of Mercury at various times over ten years. At best it's source material. Francs2000 | Talk 13:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I have combined these four separate vfd's into one for vfd efficiency, as the articles are virtually identical in format/content. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:02, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Wikisource. Radiant_>|< 14:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know if Wikisource wants this, the formatting is a bit wanting. But transwiki to Wikisource anyway, and let the users there decide whether or not they want it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, possibly to a book of astronomical ephemeris'. :) — RJH 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikisource. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. The raw data (while interesting to some) are not sufficiently readable for an encyclopedic antry. Physchim62 16:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks is for textbooks and manuals, which this is not. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• According to Wikisource:What is Wikisource? Wikisource includes "Mathematical data, formulas, and tables" and "Statistical source data". Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Clean up and transwiki to Wikisource.--Jyril 17:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Format properly as tables (perhaps one per year for easier rendering) and t/w to Wikisource or Wikibooks. --MarkSweep 20:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Very useful, but sadly Wikipedia isn't the place for ephemerides. Transwiki to Wikisource and tidy up. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikisource after cleanup. JamesBurns 06:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Desperately needs tidying up. MacRusgail
  • Ideally if the articles are kept, the data should be placed into tables rather than leaving as is. JamesBurns 06:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete all, add source of data to Ephemeris.--Kurando 28 June 2005 10:41 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikisource (or Wikibooks, whichever will take it). There's a limit to how almanac-like Wikipedia should be, IMO. Bryan 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was BJAODNized. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)

• BJAODN I change my vote to BJAODN. Havok 18:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — non-scientific "condition", or else a joke. — RJH 15:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Belongs in Wikipedia namespace, and I do think it's there already. Delete as fork (or redirect if you must, but RFD is opposed to cross-namespace redirs). Radiant_>|< 15:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Kind of obvious why. -- Natalinasmpf 15:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete belongs in Wikipedia namespace and we already have pages for wikipediholics. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• As per Radiant! and MacGyverMagic, we already have Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. No BJAODN. Delete. Uncle G 16:13, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• move to BJAODN and put redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipediholic at the place (maybe with un-capitalized 'A'). — MFH: Talk 22:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. JamesBurns 06:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No BJAODN. Another page created with the direct intent of having it on BJAODN. Strong Delete. -ÅfÇ++ 07:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and add redir to Wikipedia:Wikipediholic--ZekeMacNeil 03:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge mention into Bluetooth and redirect. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

Neologism, external link is to a student's BSc Computer Science project. the wub "?/!" 14:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Bluetooth. Kinger414 16:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Whether it’s neologism or not, it is developing into a new applied technology. Companies like Accenture have developed their implementation too.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Not notable. r3m0t ^talk 15:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• The etymology, translations, and meaning of a name word is what Wiktionary is for. This is not the correct spelling of the word, however. Wiktionary would want the actual Aramaic word, not its romanization, which this article does not provide. Furthermore: This isn't the NPOV title for an article the "On This Rock" dispute, since it is a title that supports one particular side in that dispute. So this is not the place to grow such an article. Delete unless rewritten about the administrative region of Ethiopia. Uncle G 18:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep, small transparent green stones used for purposes of divination are inherently encyclopedic. Kappa 19:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The meaning of the name word (which wouldn't be the English title for an article about such stones anyway even if what this article said were correct, since, as this article says, it's not the English word for such things) is a part of this article that's outright wrong. Basing a rationale for keeping upon it is, to use a particularly apposite metaphor given the subject, building one's house upon sand. Uncle G 22:58, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • Darn. But some things have no English translation, in which case a non-English title must be used. Kappa 23:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm certain that English has a word for rock. ☺ If you want to see what this article is slyly getting at, see primacy of Simon Peter. Uncle G 11:23, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Uncle G. JamesBurns 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Original research. Also, very much not maintainable. FuriousFreddy 15:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Kinger414 16:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What FFreddy said.
• Delete. Like they said. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto. humblefool® 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Non notable advertizing. Physchim62 15:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I live 5 mins from that place, and it's not really worth a mention on Wikipedia. --Madchester 16:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Haha, Delete. Kinger414 16:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Put it to sleep. CryptoDerk 16:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, this is where they said my parents were bad people for wanting to put down our very sick dog :( Anyway, delete. Adam Bishop 16:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, it's as notable as a school. must... not... get... schoolkeepitis. delete Dunc|☺ 17:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Recent edits are by Peter Mollard, who shares the same last name as the chief vet there. Coincidence? I think not. --Scimitar 21:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising and advise author not to be such a giveaway. It takes all the fun out of VfD.-Splash 02:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Some user added a refernce to the clinic in the Richmond Hill, Ontario article... which I subsequently removed. --Madchester 07:47, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The best variation ("William Kephart") only gets about 300 hits on Google, and most of the top results are unrelated. I don't see how he is more notable than most other solders. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Xcali 16:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Physchim62 16:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 06:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Physchim62 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability to surfing claimed, unverified. --Scimitar 16:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's a copyvio from here [17]. JamesBurns 06:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge.FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

Obviously not a speedy. If it's related to Jango Fett, it's about Star Wars, but the name and contents don't help in determining if it's canon. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or go through and totally rewrite it. It is Star Wars, as far as I can tell, but it's in such bad shape it should be trashed and started over. If someone cleans up, let me know on my talk page and I'll change my vote. --Scimitar 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the List of minor Star Wars characters--Scimitar 13:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• You're right. I missed the Jango Fett ref when I tagged it. I'm still voting Delete, though. --Xcali 16:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The force is telling me that this is pretty non-canon - do you think anybody's actually named Nate in Star Wars? Delete as likely StarWarsRPGfancruft. humblefool® 23:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 06:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. --Simon Cursitor 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• First of all, this is all 100% pure canon. Nate was short for "A-98," an arc designation. This guy was one of the main characters in The Cestus Deception, one of the Clone Wars novels. Merge to List of minor Star Wars characters-LtNOWIS 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Gasp, he's right! I still say delete and create an article for The Cestus Deception instead. humblefool® 01:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistent history; text from a previous vandal. Suspected junk. Firien 16:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Well, unless a precocious teenage prodigy really has solved the Palestinian situation and I've just missed it. — P Ingerson (talk) 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is actually quite painful. --Scimitar 17:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet more typical vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fantasy vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 21:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, he may have solved the problems of the world at Model United Nations but it doesn't make him notable. --Etacar11 23:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They're always male, aren't they? Perhaps Wikipedia:Males should not be allowed to edit articles is in order... humblefool® 23:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

An article in Italian about the guitarist of a local band. The article, the website of the band and a Google search do not establish notability, in my opinion. Sietse 17:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable and not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, vanity. KFP 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 23:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Useless Iuy 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - while speculative and seemingly a long way ahead, it is tagged as such and more information will come, there is already information on Denver possible bid. There is significant information already available on 2016. Article link: 2020 Summer Olympics - comment: nominated by User:Dafr who has no other edits. The nomination is not formatted quite correctly but I have not time to fix.--AYArktos 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 06:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Minor comment -- parts of this (esp re Denver) seem to me to be POV; other parts seem vaguely crystal-ball-ish, which I thought was a Wiki no-no. --Simon Cursitor 06:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge the possible bidders are verifiable information. And bids for the Olympics are always done far in advance. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I don't really like it, the 2020 Summer Olympics will be happening, so I have to vote keep. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. There are no actual bidders yet, only possible bidders, which is speculation. — Gwalla | Talk 01:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless and Wikipedia should cover topics of wide interest, even if they are in the future. CalJW 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We know for sure that the 2020 Olympics are happening. And JamesBurns says that comment for everything. --WikiFan04^{ß 19:24, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}
• I'd say keep. It's good to look a few Olympic Games ahead - 2020 will come around eventually, even though it seems a long way off now (but then, so did this year in 1990). I don't think we should be writing about the 2024 Summer Olympics for a few years though.
• Keep. If the Olympics cease to exist we can delete it. — Phil Welch 04:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Straight from WP:NOT: "Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles. " --Malathion 2 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
• Keep - Similar discussion at the GTA4 page. Guys, there are some things you can safely insert as place holder. It helps build the community of information on wikipedia. If there was no page, then people who may have useful information will be turned away. That's the last thing a small growing project like Wikipedia needs. There's a reason the {future} tag was invented. If Wiki didn't want speculation, the {future} tag would be a deletion device. It is not. However, I can see there are those who like to follow the rules to the letter. I encourage everyone who voted delete, and all former elementary school hall monitors, to go find all {future} tags here and tag them bitches with VFD to death. (p.s. I might do it if no one else does as a protest against the silly crystal ball rule) --Muchosucko 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Keep -- The Olympic Games are a recognized event, and even though 2020 is still 15 years away (as I'm writing this), there is a reason why people are talking about and/or planning for an event of this magnatude. Maybe an article such as the 2032 or 2036 Olympics – which are still years away – are not suitable, but I agree with Muchosucko. [[206.72.11.46 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)]]
• Keep - lots of info will happen soon CoolGuy

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was deleted FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)

copyvio of ISBN 0761120165. Straight deletion since this recipe should be in wikibooks if it was not using copyright material. Theo (Talk) 17:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep the non-copyvio, non-recipe part. Kappa 18:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all copy-vio recipes. --Scimitar 18:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio, should be dealt with there. I added the copyvio tag, put on copyright problems page. Wikibofh 18:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 06:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Indirect grilling. Having considered this further in the light of Kappa's astute recognition that it is not all copyvio.—Theo (Talk) 08:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Was tagged as speedy and sounds like vanity but no one is deleting it. They do have an entry at Allmusic guide. What should I do? (Abstain) - Mgm|^(talk) 18:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• You list it here, of course. Delete - article itself says "unrecognised". humblefool® 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete very short article with little or no context. -Splash 02:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page Billhpike Billhpike 02:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Was tagged as speedy, but no one seems to delete it. I'd like to have some input from the general public to see what to do. I abstain. Mgm|^(talk) 18:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I updated the article (slightly) to point out that he is a Singaporean politician. Needs a bit of work, but otherwise perfectly fine article. -Hmib 20:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Only an initial? Doesn't this guy have a first name? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Sigh, doesn't anyone know anything about southern indian names? Dhanabalan is his first name. S. is the initial of his father's first name (Suppaiah). S. Dhanabalan is the correct way to specify his name, assuming you don't take an anglo-saxon view of the world!
• As strange as that might sound, it seems that "S Dhanabalan" IS his full name. See [this link]. It's an official Singapore government website. -Hmib 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Why did you think it was worthy of speedy deletion in the first place, seeing how it was verifiable and NPOV, and given a source? In case you didn't know, this was a very highlighted issue during the national press conferences, I mean, I don't go around tagging American political events and rallies for vfd or speedy delete now do I? And about the names, its the result of translation from his ethnic name...can people stop presuming things? Let me guess, 2 or 3 other people will suddenly charge and vote delete too, knowing nothing of the fact that this is a key case where authoritarian abuse goes scot-free? This was a highly controversial and heated point in Singapore's history, in case you did not know. Can you please check google and check the presence of sources before marking it for deletion next time? -- Natalinasmpf 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I moved the page as per correct name. Please respect actual and reputable sources, unless something happened overnight I don't know about, suddenly it has to be documented by a server in the West in order to qualify. -- Natalinasmpf 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Take a deep breath, please. Mgm listed it here so that it didn't get speedily deleted without discussion, and furthermore didn't vote on it himself. He just wanted to see what we all thought. It is now clear that the consensus is to keep this valuable article. --Scimitar 22:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Just to be clear- keep. --Scimitar 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I find it hard to believe that "S" is a name in any language. Sometimes you need to shout a name... Kappa 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Aha! "Dhanabalan, who doesn't disclose what the S is for in his full name..."[18] Kappa 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Famously, see: Harry S Truman Xoloz 06:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this one too please Yuckfoo 23:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Definite Keep. I'm all for proper VfDs as the next man, but really, the person who originally tried to speedy it (not Mgm, I hasten to say), could have Just Googled it and prevented this rather pointless discussion. --khaosworks 08:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• keep --Vsion 04:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr Tan 17:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 28 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, malformed title, written partly in first person. Jyril 18:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Btw 18:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, sounds like it was written by one of her students. No notability evidenced in the article. --Etacar11 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Lots of notability mentioned. She excelled in all her school exams and graduated with a PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.147.164 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2005 Jun 21
• Delete. Non-notable. --Canderson7 17:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• It is noted many times that she posseses invaluable experience and knowledge in the field of chemistry.
  • Unsigned comment made by User:172.202.147.164 -- Wikibofh 18:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well I'm not a member so I can't sign the comments. Its not like you can post a signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.14.232 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2005 Jun 22
  • Anyone can sign xyr own posts on talk pages. Uncle G 15:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE! This is an invaluable source on the renowned chemist Dr Cowie, and a lasting tribute to a woman unfortunately recently diagnosed with breast cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.165.83.216 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2005 Jun 23
  • Wikipedia is not a memorial for tributes to people with breast cancer. Uncle G 15:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Assistant location movie on an obscure movie. NN. silsor 18:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete him and his siblings; they're all nonnotable. (And how two siblings could be born five months apart is beyond me.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe they had different mothers? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Or adoption, or she lies about her age.(unsigned comment by User:206.201.180.226)
• Delete. Although Lost in America is not an obscure movie (it has a respectible run back in the day, & merited a review on NPR), I find it hard to justify an article on someone whose most notable achievement was "assistant location manager" in a movie -- any movie. (A check at Internet Movie Database fails to uncover any other achievements for Antin.) What next -- articles on "personal assistants" to all of the stars in The Matrix? -- llywrch 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete family vanity. JamesBurns 06:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but not the siblings. One is the star of a current tv show, one is the founder of the most famous burlesque show in the USA and one was an actor in several large movies in the 80s.(unsigned vote by User:206.201.180.226)

• Delete Agreed, not the siblings.AriGold 19:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to sign your votes with 4 ~. --Etacar11 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Sorry, Hogeye. Golbez 01:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

One of User:Hogeye's 27 fork pages so that he could get his bias into wikipedia somewhere. It's a copy of another useless page, Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism. Can something be done about this user? --Tothebarricades 18:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Highly POV. Comparison is irrelevant Barneygumble 21:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV forks. JamesBurns 06:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete // Liftarn 07:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the comparison is completely obvious. Falcon 05:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirected. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)

rebundant with Use of death penalty worldwide unsigned nomination by 500LL (talk · contribs)

• Delete. Not only a poorer-quality version of another list, but is written in a POV/ inaccurate manner. (It specifically says that this is a list of countries who use the death penalty for minor crimes, and inclueds the US. Last I checked, drug traficking, murder or treason were not considered minor). --Scimitar 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Use of death penalty worldwide. — Gwalla | Talk 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Use of death penalty worldwide. First Google hit is Amnesty's website dealing with term. WP:NOT a dictionary, usually, but this does appear to be a proper concept and the article as-is isn't a dicdef.-Splash 02:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Move definition to Wiktionary. List is subjective and/or meaningless without a definition of 'ordinary crime'. Peter Grey 05:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and DO NOT redirect because even if this term is actual, it is clearly a loaded one and therefore WP should not even acknowledge that it exists. Falcon 05:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure I get your reasoning there. It's one thing to be unbiased; it's another to deny that biased terms exist or have meaning. — Gwalla | Talk 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all 4. CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

Two three four articles on a tiny religion based in the San Fernando Valley and its founder. Not notable/promotion/vanity. silsor 19:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --Xcali 19:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --WAvegetarian 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Based on the user's past contributions (User:24.126.43.134), he is likely the founder or member himself. The name seems to be based on the Sanjan community article this anon wrote. Delete. --Scimitar 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --W i k i a c c 19:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is B. Mcfarlane, a disciple of S.W.M.. It is correct, this is the computer from which myself and other followers often use. Before considering deletion, please contact me at {removed because of unprecedented exposure to this page} There are other followers who can testify in its defense. unsigned edit by 24.126.43.134 (talk · contribs)

If your friends want to argue against the deletion of these page, they should do so right here. silsor 19:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is S. Halifax, another follower. Please do not delete. We are a small but growing sect that desires exposure. unsigned edit by 24.126.43.134 (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The Wikipedia reports on things that are notable. It is not a place to create publicity. --Xcali 19:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete nn and ne, especially in light of preceding quote. This site is not called Wiki-Proselytizing. There is an enormous, well established network of places to "spread knowledge" of little know sects and and products; it's called Advertising. Kevin/Last1in 19:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Theologycruft and a sockmagnet. — P Ingerson (talk) 19:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What they said. Wikipedia is not a PR-wire. NTK 19:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is Halifax. I have taken back my previous assertion. We do not wish to advertise, but understand that Wikipedia is place to come for answers. If one hears talk of Sanjan on the street, this is a wonderful place to come for answers. More defense is on its way. Give us a chance, we are not looking for money, or even followers.

Further, please excuse earlier vandalism by this IP. Teenagers have access to this computer and have been reckless.

unsigned edit by Bndr McFarlane (talk · contribs)

• Comment - clarification of my 'Stong Delete' vote, using approved Wiki shorthand from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion: Theo-cruft, ne, nn, POV, promotional, advertorial, Wikispam, too secret. That's like half the list of good reasons to delete an article, especially in light of the author commentary. Kevin/Last1in 20:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why would a "highly secretive" group desire publicity on WP? --Xcali 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - why are "McFarlane" and "Halifax" editing from the same account? silsor 20:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The exact pillars of thought are known only to followers, though we understand the concern and have and can continue to adjust the articles accordingly. We dont desire publicity. Halifax has access to this computer as well.

unsigned edit by Bndr McFarlane (talk · contribs)

• Comment - They are a "small sect that desires publicity" but they "do not wish to advertise" and "are not looking for money or even followers"? We can have an article about this group when there is anyone talking about Sanjan on the street, besides the one or two people apparently behind it. NTK 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Basically, non-notable. While I can sympathize with your group's desire to be known, there are too many small groups for each to be notable. Also, a secret group cannot rightly have an Encyclopedia entry about it, now can it? -- Cabhan 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• here is a signature for you nitpickers--Bndr McFarlane 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• deleteDunc|☺ 20:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

do not delete these pages. i am a follower of the religion of sanjan, it is real. do not be ignorant. please do not delete.

SANJAN IS REAL!!!! I BELIEVE!!!! DONT DELETE!!!!! unsigned edit by 64.60.54.131 (talk · contribs)

• Sanjan, though it has not yet been recognized by congress as an official religion, is in fact, a real religion, as has been outlined by one S.W.M. according to his spiritual vision. To delete the articles on Sanjan is to undermine the spiritual beliefs of said S.W.M., as well as every other follower of Sanjan. Do not delete Sanjan. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
• Sanjan is a real religion. I am a devout follower, and it hurts to know that there are people trying to delete the pages that mean so much to me. Do not delete, believe! unsigned edit by 69.234.196.100 (talk · contribs)
• Yes. Yes it is quite a religion. What I see in the sanjan followers is no different then what i see in christian and jewish followers. This religion is a way of life and if you take this away from these people, you are essentially stealing their soul. Thats how you get terrorists... unsigned edit by 71.129.48.32 (talk · contribs)
• Comment: There's a big difference between Sanjan and Judeo-Christianity. It's a case of sheer numbers. Over 1/6th of the world's population is a believe in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Removing a Wikipedia entry steals someone's soul? Hmmm...I must remember that when removing vanity articles. Okay, who deleted the article on Al Qaeda? That must be what caused the September 11 attack. --Xcali 20:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The previous five anonymous voters have <5 edits, and all in Sanjan related articles. I would suggest either sock- or meat- puppetry, and point out that the existence of the religion is not being debated here; rather it's relevance to Wikipedia and the world as a whole.--Scimitar 20:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• i have heard of sanjan and i know people that follow. unsigned edit by 207.200.116.6 (talk · contribs)
  • Comment: User has a history of vandalism. --Scimitar 20:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would kindly like to point out in response to Xcali's comment that Judaism and Christianity began as small faiths as well. Sanjan is one of the fastest growing belief systems in America. I have already addressed the vandalism issue, and find it utterly irrelevant that the gambols of a 14-year-old nephew on this machine be connected to this highly serious discussion.--Bndr McFarlane 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Counter-arguments seem to suggest that deletion of the article will destroy the religion... in which case, there will be nothing to have an article on... in which case, there never should have been an article... in which case, there should not be an article now. (Note: this vote is now from the future, when there is no such article, from when it was/will be cast backwards in time). -- BD2412 ^talk 21:03, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Where exactly do counter-arguments suggest that deletion of the article will destroy the religion? Sanjan will remain strong and growing whether or not the article exists. The question is whether or not you want to undermine and show a complete lack of respect for the spiritual beliefs of others by deleting the article. The issue is freedom of religion, plain and simple. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
• You're free to have your religion. You're just not free to place an article about it in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Xcali 21:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: True, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all started small and grew over thousands of years into major forces in world events. You should probably check back with Wikipedia in 3900 years, 2010 years, and 1490 years (respectively) and resubmit your article. {struck with apologies for the snide tone.} At this point, it is still non-encyclopedic, POV and advertorial. Also, as to the "freedom of religion", Wikipedia is NOT a US government institution, it is an international collective enterprise; it has specific rules which detail what kinds of material are appropriate. The reason that your articles are on this page is so the worldwide Wiki community can collectively determine if they meet those guidelines. Kevin/Last1in 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the comment about "check[ing] back with Wikipedia in 3900 years, 2010 years, and 1490 years" to be offensive and an insult to my intelligence, considering that, as far as I know, no human could possibly live this long. Perhaps you should save your jokes and sarcasm for amateur night at your local comedy club, or maybe even to impress some ladies at the pub. Otherwise, your apparently witty comments have no place in this serious discussion. In addition to this, I fail to see how the articles are non-encyclopedic, POV or advertorial. However, the articles are informational, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wiki has any policy prohibiting information. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Xcali 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would also suggest that if you took offense to those comments, you need to develop a thicker skin. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, and your religion gets no media coverage anywhere, as far as I can tell. Feel free to prove me wrong. Now, because WP:NOT a crystal ball, we can't peer into the future and see if someday you might be important to many people, because right now you evidently are not. Thus, an article will be only written if and when your religion becomes noteworthy. --Scimitar 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• wow, my little articles have sparked quite an exciting discussion, for better or worse. thanks for the support, for those who have been supporting, and even for the anti-Sanjan responses, for your continued interest on this topic. --Bndr McFarlane 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: No-one here is anti-Sanjan. We're just anti-articles-about-Sanjan. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so far we know that Wikipedia is not a) a soapbox and b) a crystal ball. I might also point out that it is not c) a state of mind or d) a toaster. The list of what Wikipedia isn't could go on and on. Unfortunatley, what Wikipedia is not, is also not relevant to this conversation. Please define "noteworthy," because I know a great deal of people who consider Sanjan to be very noteworthy indeed. unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)

• Comment In a way, it's up to each user of the Wikipedia to define it for themself. There are guidelines, but in the end, they are just guidelines, not rules. The Google test is one popular method. --Xcali 22:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I respect your opinions, and appreciate your support, user, but the purpose here is not to perpetuate arguments. If the Wikipedia team choose to be unresponsive to (or even prejudiced toward) our burgeoning faith, they have every right. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's true, and if the tides of the modern age swell against us, then we must continue to look to the skies with or without the knowledge of the online community. --Bndr McFarlane 21:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I understand, and I apologize for my increasingly hostile responses. I just get so upset with this complete lack of respect for our faith, the articles of which have as much a right to be here as every other article on Wikipedia. unsigned edit by 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
  • Please explain this right. I don't understand it. silsor 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • What about your lack of respect for the Wikipedia, its community, and its "beliefs"? --Xcali 22:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Right" was perhaps a poor word-choice. I simply believe that if you are going to delete the articles on Sanjan than you might as well just start deleting everything else as well.unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
  • If I didn't respect the Wikipedia, then I wouldn't be here arguing for these articles in the first place.unsigned comment from 69.231.58.181 (talk · contribs)
    • Comment: Please respect Wikipedia by signing your comments 69.231.58.181. Thank you. --Durin 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Clarification: Wikipedia is neither for or against any religion. It is non-denominational. However, Wikipedia strives only to include information that can be verified by independent sources. Since I can't find any, and its adherents here have provided none, I have no choice but to support the removal of the articles in question. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the religion, which are in fact non-existent. --Scimitar 22:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i recieved this message in support from a user: "User talk:24.126.43.134 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

please save. i believe. i really believe." --Bndr McFarlane 22:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My name is Tomas, and Sanjan has saved my life. I tried Christianity, Judaism, even Zen buddhism, but it wasn't until a monk at the Zen Center of Los Angeles referred me to the religion of Sanjan that i found something that really spoke to me. unsigned comment by 68.66.102.239 (talk · contribs)
• Independent sources, please. The beliefs of anonymous individual adherents (or even non-anonymous ones) have no bearing on the discussion. --Scimitar 22:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, let's back up a bit. Most Wikipedians (including Jimbo in his Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance post) feel there are two essential elements for any encyclopedic article: Verifiability and NPOV. Is it possible to create a Sanjan article that passes both tests? IMHO, you cannot write one that passes either. The religion is "secret" and "exclusive", so verification is only possible by referring to Sacred Texts (a tautology), or by deferring to adherents (which violates objectivity). Since only adherents will be able to effectively edit Wikipedia articles, POV is inescapable. Until such time as Sanjan becomes a discernable, well-known influence in society or a topic of wide public discourse, I do not think encyclopedic articles can be created. PS: The list of things Wikipedia is not is found here. Also, I am not anti-Sanjan. I have as much respect for your faith as any other; I just have no faith in the encyclopedic value of your article. Kevin/Last1in 22:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• in response, the post "i have heard of sanjan and i know people that follow. unsigned edit by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs)" from this anonymous user, who is obviously not an "adherent", gives an objective verification of Sanjan's relevence. --24.126.43.134 22:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • • But the comment of an anonymous poster is not Verifiable evidence. How can we verify that he/she/it(?) was telling the truth? — P Ingerson (talk) 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Something just doesn't feel right about deleting this article... let it sit for a few months, let the articles evolve a bit, and revisit this one later if necessary. We could probably do with merging/redirecting the articles. (I don't know about that copied/pasted text in there, though. Do religious texts count as copyvios?) Almafeta 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why does it not feel right to delete something for which we have no secondary sources whatever and is completely unverifiable? Delete. Uncle G 23:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable nonsense. Gamaliel 23:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Vanity, hoax, near-nonsense, unverifiable, self-promotional, excessive sockpuppets: pick any you like. "an obscure school of thought that involves rigorous sky-watching and, by some accounts, cannabis use" pretty much says it all. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Even without the sock-puppets, it's advertisement/self-promotion. --Etacar11 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To counter the arguement about the christian/judeo thing: If Wikipedia had existed at the time of christ, we wouldn't have had an article on him either. Wikipedia doesn't care how enlightened you are, how groundbreaking your religion is, or even how much you beg. What we want in an article is some objectivity, some encyclopedic worth, and a healthy slice of humble pie. I see none of that here. humblefool® 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is this very animosity that christ recieved at the hands of the Pharisees. do some self-realization before making assumptions. Sanjan is spreading fast; even established underground hip hop artist McTimbo now looks to the skies. --24.126.43.134 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Who? Isn't "estabilshed underground" an oxymoron? --Xcali 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Christ and Christians faced animus due to their beliefs. IMHO, you are facing resistance from people who are unwilling to see an objective encyclopaedia hijacked to provide free advertising for your organisation. Animus, if any, seems directed towards your commentary in this forum, where you persist in disregarding the mores and customs of this community. Note that all "deleters" used valid Wiki criteria and formatting for their posts; all but one of the "keepers" did not (suggesting, not proving, that active members of this community are not impressed with the encyclopaedic value of these articles). Just an opinion. Kevin/Last1in 01:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wrt Almafeta better to delete the article now and allow it back in if Sanjan still exists in 5 years --202.173.129.184 01:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete!!! My eyes!!! Now let's put it this way - I start a religion called the Theology of Abrakadabra the Benevolent, rush-produce a 'sacred text' on the magnitude of "in the begginning god cr8d da haevens and da eath", claims to be a reclusive religion that I want everyone to know about. Someone put my article on vfd. Would it survive? - In other words: Non notable, vanity, POV, and I'm afraid, a bit Looney Tunes. (But that's just my personal opinion). -Hmib`

Delete vanity verging on nonsense (I will go their hell if I must). The point made about Christ not qualifying for an entry at the time he was preaching in the temple is an insightful one here. -Splash 02:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with our posts, but to mock us on the order of a cartoon show is humiliating and a sacrilege. We are deeply offended by this disrespect.--24.126.43.134 02:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am awaiting the righteous wrath of thy god, Abrakadabra the Benevolent. Delete! Delete! And again I say DELETE! -Hmib 03:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strongest Delete and block recreation from obvious vandals. Xoloz 06:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, church vanity. JamesBurns 06:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Scimitar and User:Last1in. Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable and strive for NPOV. Unless independent sources can be provided this isn't going to happen. We can't even proof Sanjan is growing at the rate you state. Note: People, please be considerate and don't mock with someone's religion. Witty vote comments don't belogn here. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong strong delete. Cultcruft. Ban those responsible. — Phil Welch 03:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - A Google search for "Sanjan religion" (no quotes) returns 827 sites. As far as I can tell, they seem to refer to a kingdom of Sanjan, which is a part of the Zoroastrian religion. That said, I believe that your religion exists, and I believe that you follow it closely, and I believe that to you, it is your religion. I also believe that those who are mocking you are wrong in doing so. However, it cannot be argued that your religion, due to secrecy, cannot be verified in regards to any information that we put down. Its notability to the general world is not significant (again, I quote the Google search). I (and I hope we) are not anti-Sanjan, merely anti-unnotable articles. When your religion has grown and is more notable for an encyclopedia, I have no doubt that an article will be allowed. -- Cabhan 17:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)

Non-notable band. "The Spores"+Biribauer gets 14 Google hits. Their website is pretty impenetrable, but it seems they've only played regionally, mostly in California, and their recordings seem to be self-produced.—Wahoofive (talk) 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (unsigned vote by Chairboy)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What does that article even mean? Haikupoet 01:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

This is an advertisement for a likely non-notable band. As a quick googling shows, the text is lifted straight from the band's promotional biography. Since this is not noted in either the text or the talk, this probably a copyright violation as well. NTK 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 23:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems is along the corridor, three doors down. Uncle G 00:24, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of that. However copyvio usually presumes it's worth having an article on the topic to begin with. VfD moots copyvio, so there's no sense in bothering with researching the status of the text or rewriting it if the article should be deleted for being promotional, non-notable bandcruft. NTK 08:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. This is not band vanity; however, the person who made the article copied it from the Solid State Records website, which does make it sound like band vanity (it's more actual label vanity =P ).—Sixteen Left 02:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but rewrite done - was working on categorisation Paul foord 2 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

 The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the     
supreme position among the laws of Nature.  If someone points out to you that your pet theory 
of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equation—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s 
 equation.  If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well, these experimentalists do 
    bungle things sometimes.  But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of 
        Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it 
                but to collapse in deepest humiliation.      
                                       Sir Arthur Eddington - English Astronomer [1882-1944]