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 delete. Neutrality^talk 20:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Church of Reality[edit]

The Church of Reality ironically doesn't appear to exist within the realm of reality. it appears to be someone's idea of a joke religion, that isn't very funny. 3,300 google hits, mostly on infidel message boards and the like, and it is POV. Dunc|☺ 10:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly just one man trying to get tax exempt status. Jimbobsween
• Delete. I think the guy is probably San Francisco-earnest, but I don't think he's gotten enough attention to be notable yet (i.e. like the Church of the Subgenius), and Wikipedia is not a place to promote something not-yet-notable. The user who created this seems to be the same fellow who founded the religion, never a good sign (see the talk page).--Fastfission 14:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look at the link Church Organization this is not a one man show. And BTW in the Church of Subgenius newsgroup alt.slack someone made a note about the CoR Google groups - alt.slack --Tommynchucky
• Comment. The Church of Reality has existed for 7 years, it returns 2610 hits on Google and has been granted a registered trademark by the United States. This is just an attempt by Christians to suppress competition. These same people are attaching anything relating to the Church of Reality See also: doubt based --Marcperkel 15:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not religious in the least, so you needn't worry about that being a motivation (I was actually quite active in the Bay Area freethought communities when I lived out there). I have here a page from your blog which says that the Chuch was about to launch in December 2004, and another from July 2004 saying you were still working on its "doctrine", so claiming it has existed for "7 years" seems like a bit of a stretch. Most of the Google hits are either a few bloggers saying "huh?" or things that you seem to have posted yourself to open directories. Trademark status means nothing other than that you filled out a form. We're not "attacking" anything, we just don't think it conforms to Wikipedia inclusion requirements. No need to get paranoid. --Fastfission 16:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why don't you do a whois on the domain churchofreality.org and you'll see it was created on 11/08/1998. You can also search archive.org and see old versions of the web site. In the Church of Reality we are always working on our doctrine. --Marcperkel 16:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Established parody religion, like Landover Baptist Church. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:57, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  • Under what standard is it "established" except that a guy has self-promoted it on the internet, has made a website for it, and has registered its name as a trademark? None of those things make it very "Established" in my mind. If you look at the sites linking to his website, none give the impression that this is a phenomena nearly as well-known or notable as Landover Baptist. This looks like just one guy to me. --Fastfission 16:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And you looked at all 2610 Google references and came to that conclusion? I was interviewed on Air America Radio by Mike Malloy who did a spacial show on the Church of Reality. What does it take to prove to you that it is big enough for your tastes?--Marcperkel 16:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement and use of the Wikipedia for promotion or gain of notability. --Sn0wflake 16:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And when we advertise Wikipedia for gain of notability, it's not ok? I've been an active member of the IBS Self Help group and I posted an promotional offer to the Church of Reality in two places: Church of Reality - my way of life and Invitation to the Church of Reality. Ironically I link to Wikipedia for promotion and gain of notability. So what I'm doing is not kewl eh? --Tommynchucky
• Delete. This user has been scattering articles and edits around, all reflecting his personal beliefs (beliefs that I partly share, incideentally, but that's not the point), including Natural religion (which another user has made into a disambiguation page) and Doubt based. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a precedent that 1430 google hits are sufficient for an article to be noteworthy. ~~~~ 17:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There's no hard-and-fast line on Google hits - it's just one piece of the puzzle. Looking at the main site itself, and at some of the links Google comes up with, it seems that it has made some waves in a variety of places. It needs severe cleanup - "we believe" has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm hesitant to vote for something that has generated so many sockpuppets (mostly on the votes below so far), but I'm going weak keep. ESkog 17:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • But there's also the issue of the quality of those hits. As it stands, most of those hits are just messages he's left on message boards all over the web. It's a tactic that gets ultra-vain Shawn Mikula 78,000 hits. By comparison Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) gets 7,000 hits but many from different sources. Dunc|☺ 18:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 

  Keep. On the surface level, the Church of Reality appears Discordian but if you examine it is a serious competitor to the marketplace of religion. I am a member and am also a secular humanist. What makes it different is that has a different leadership. It is a memetic splinter off of it. A similar thing happened when the Secular Student Alliance branched out of the Campus Freethought Alliance (under the direction of the Council for Secular Humanism). The SSA wanted to be autonomous and many of the members have dual involvement. Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 2:43 EST
  • This is sockpuppet. special:contributions/Tommynchucky (unsigned comment at 19:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC), by Duncharris. Paul August ☎ 15:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • A sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Where is your evidence that I'm posting under multiple usernames? Do you have proof of IP logins from any of the admins? Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 3:15 EST
      • Gosh, you know a lot for a complete newcomer. But then, your first and only edits were here, so you're very special kind of newcomer... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Quoting from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion "It is difficult to tell sock puppets from newcomers. If you are contributing your first article, or are a newly pseudonymous user, please state this clearly and up-front, and please don't become offended if another Wikipedian points out your lack of editing history." I am a newbie. Capishe? Tommynchucky June 04, 2005 5:10
          • Quoting from the top of this very page: "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a member of this religion, and although unusual as far as religions go, it is certainly very real.
  • Voted by 66.92.0.86 (talk · contribs) 18:47, 2005 Jun 4 (according to edit history. Uncle G 21:00, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC))
• Keep Their are actual hits, and while it is not very notable their is info on the church and the webpage is developed. I don't believe someone would put that much work into the webpage if the church didn't exist. Falphin 19:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sock puppet limit has been reached. RickK 20:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, advertising. —Xezbeth 20:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Use of wikipedia as advertising; sockpuppet abuse. — Asbestos | Talk 20:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The raw number of Google hits can be instructive but alone it can just mean that someone has been agressivley posting links on blogs and forums, sending out press releases that are automatically picked up on some web sites, submitting listings to various directories, etc... That is what this looks like to me. No real third party comentary or other validation that I could see. One person can get a couple of friends together call it a religion - that is exercising freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc... However, it should have some broad support before it gets an article in Wikipedia. If 10 people form a local club in S.F., I'll bet it would be deleted. If 10 people with common beliefs call themselves a religion, I don't see how the group is any more encyclopedic. DS1953 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems like an attempt at promotion. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Paul August ☎ 20:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. no notability presented mikka (t) 21:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - significance not yet verified, self-promotion --Doc (?) 22:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this. — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth.
  The only member of this purported church appears to be Marc Perkel. The only evidence of its existence stems from that same, single, central source, either from his own vast flood of web log postings and discussion forum contributions, or from other people simply citing the several web sites that he created and owns (perkel.com, churchofreality.org, and bartcop.com, for starters). Marc Perkel doesn't seem to be lacking the ability to create his own soapboxes. Looking at the discussions that Tommynchucky points to above (where the tag team is exactly the same as it is here), people seem to be ignoring what he cries from atop them, rather than joining his purported church. The other two purported members of the purported church's "Council of Realists" are strangely quiet about the entire thing, too. One doesn't even need to read the "Tithing" section of the purported church's "Fundamental Concepts", where it says "I am a person who has unusual mental talents. I think science should study me to see what it is about me that gives me my unusual mental abilities." to know that this is a religion of 1 adherent. And now we have these articles submitted here by User:Marcperkel. Unverifiable to the point of autobiography; and of course Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Delete. Uncle G 22:37, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, ad, self-promotion. And I'm agnostic. --Etacar11 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have heard of this before, so that established notability for me. Revolución 23:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I see nobody has attacked this vote, though they're more than willing to attack other people by putting up the strawman argument that their vote is "I haven't heard of it, so it must not be notable." RickK 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the place to be promoting a new religion or a place to attempt establishment of new concepts.Tobycat 00:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  
• Keep. I don't understand the arguments for deletion. They are primarily "vanity" and lack of "notability". It seems that the argument from vanity would imply that if I, someone who is on the emailing list for the church, wrote this thing then it wouldnt be vain and it would be acceptable. And the argument from notability would imply some objective standard of notability, which there is not. Those arguing from notability are just declaring their own ignorance. And those arguing from vanity are just arguing their own contempt. It is just an article about a very real existing church, one that is obtaining IRS status, and one that has a very sympathetic membership. Delete it now, it will be back later, perhaps written by someone notable and not so vain.By the way I am not a "sockpuppet" but I am a new user with no notoriety. And I only know this this article because I am on the CoR mailing list, which says something about how known it is.--Asklocus 02:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if we do delete it now and it does come back latter, because it has become more well known … well that's the way it's supposed to work. But — it is no part of our mission to help it become more well known. Paul August ☎ 02:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks like the Universist Movement is getting the same sentiment for this entry as this one. They have a discussion here with references. They are more notable than the CoR and have gotten publicity in a relatively short period of time. I guess even an article in the New York Times is still not good enough. Also interestingly enough there is an entry for Bright which was started in 2003, and they seem less notable then the Universists. There is overlap in principles in these groups. What is notable is that Starblind and other made the allegation of sockpuppetry without providing any evidence in these talk pages Talk:Universism, Talk:Universist_Movement, Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion/Universist_Movement -- Tommynchucky June 05, 2005 1:45AM EST

Tommynchucky, If you are not a sockpuppet — and I see no proof that you are — then I'm sorry, and I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia, for those who are calling you one. For the record, I don't see Starblind (explicitly) calling you a sockpuppet, it was user Duncharris, who did that, although others have (naturally enough) expressed their suspicions about a new user with no previous edits. Nevertheless, it is a well-respected Wikipedian practice to assume good faith, and we may have fallen short of that here. In any case, as Starblind pointed out it is our policy to listen and consider the comments of new users, but, in our efforts to reach a consensus, we sometimes give less weight to their votes. Paul August ☎ 15:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • User:Asklocus's only edits are to this page. RickK 21:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 05:45, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete. Popular religion for sockpuppets and no evidence of notability for humans. Capitalistroadster 08:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be vanity. Martg76 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I don't even know what a sockpuppet is but I am a human and I am not one. I am the original author and as you can see several church members have verified it is real and notable. I acknowledge how some might think it's self promoting because the founder, me, is the one making the entry. However, who knows it better than I do? Would Bill Gates be prohibited from writing about Microsoft? The membership and the thousands of Google hits and the 7 years of existence make it real enough to keep. --Marcperkel 22:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've edited "strong keep" into "comment" as you've already voted above. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not verified. carmeld1 23:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 10:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No references other than the home site. Quale 02:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Pro Christian dominionists want to suppress the competition and are trying to use censorship to oppress the CoR like they did the Universalists. --Marcperkel 03:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no evidence it's real, and the irony is too feeble to be funny. seglea 18:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Furthermore, there's no evidence that Marcperkel is a serious contributer - he seems to have done nothing on Wiki other than promote this piece of vanity. seglea
• Delete There may be a number of Google hits, but I don't think they refer to this same "church." It seems to be a one man religion at this point. --Xcali 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Wikipedia:Autobiography--Mark Perkel registered churchofreality.org and is initial/primary author of Church of Reality and related. Also "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." from the new-article edit page. Niteowlneils 21:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Reality has thousands of members and thousands of links to it on google.--Marcperkel 07:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, joke. There shoudl be option Move to unencyclopedia available. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not notable, not verifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 8 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.

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 delete. Neutrality^talk 20:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Positive evolution[edit]

The central dogma of the Church of Reality, (also on vfd). It is also nonsense since evolution does not entail progress. Dunc|☺ 10:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• At first I thought it was just going to need to be a redirect to either eugenics or orthogenesis, but then I saw it was just tied up in this Church of Reality nonsense and didn't seem well formulated at all. Prefer to just delete for simplicity's sake. --Fastfission 14:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at the very least Merge back to the Church of Reality. NO need for both articles. Guettarda 16:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ESkog 17:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. RickK 20:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons I gave at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Church of Reality. DS1953 20:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Paul August ☎ 21:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism.mikka (t) 21:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with the Church. Same reasons. --Etacar11 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Widipedia is not an appropriate place to establish new words/concepts/ideologies. Tobycat 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into the church article. I voted keep for the church but this isn't notable. Falphin 17:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. carmeld1 23:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it wasn't a doctrine from a one man church, there's no reason for it to have its own article. --Xcali 19:32, 7 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doubt based[edit]

• Keep. What is so threatening about a different way of thinking? Just because a term is relatively new that does not mean it cannot possibly be valid. The number of votes for delete here just go to show that most people have such small/tiny minds that they blindly follow what they have been taught their entire lives, then...when someone has an alternate view they feel threatened and attack viciously because by god if it isnt what they have been taught it must not be right. Please.--Lish 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. --Etacar11 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1 Google hit for doubt based religion More original research. More Microreligion -- Duncharris 10:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense - atheism is NOT a religion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just another attempt of Mark Perkel to promote his fake Church of Reality. - Jimbobsween 12:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, it's a dictdef, although I wouldn't go that far. --khaosworks 12:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it is clearly meant as a contrast to the common Faith based buzzword, it is, as of yet, not a phrase with any notability or use outside of this one fellow's unnotable parody religion. --Fastfission 14:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a new term and it is totally valid. The Church of Reality is a new religion and it has some new original concepts that don't exist in other faiths. I think the concept of doubt based religion is totally valid. I figured that Christians would want to supress this. They are also attacking the Church of Reality definition. I don't claim Atheism is a religion. Note it says "or groups". Google - 314 hits on doubt based charity --Marcperkel 15:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a self-described neologism. It hasn't caught on, it isn't notable yet. If it someday becomes common, then it will be then quite welcome. Until then, it doesn't belong here. The #1 entry on those "314" hits is a parody, many of the others are for unrelated phrases (such as "there is no doubt, based on past practice"). Searching for "doubt based morality" gets 19 hits, searching for "doubt based charity" gets 4 hits. --Fastfission 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mark: Your "new term", may very well be "valid", but for now it is still a neologism, and Wikipedia is not the place for those, please see Wikipedia:No original research. Paul August ☎ 20:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the Church of Reality is new, it is a genuine religion. Therefore, the term �doubt based religion� is a legitimate, real concept and should be kept. --daze79 4 June 2005
  • First edit by user. Possible sockpuppet. --khaosworks 16:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sn0wflake 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This user has been scattering articles and edits around, all reflecting his personal beliefs (beliefs that I partly share, incideentally, but that's not the point), including Natural religion (which another user has made into a disambiguation page) and Church of Reality. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - it is good to see the alternative to "faith-based" a type of religion that has been used to justify slaughter through the ages. 63.203.231.61 17:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Henry Schwan
  • First edit by anon user. Possible sockpuppet.--khaosworks 17:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I say keep because it has already been in past use. An Article Japan: Buddhism meets Shintoism in Japan By Marvin Olasky refers to a doubt-based religion, Zen Buddhism. A quote from the article says " "Zen says, 'You doubt? Great. You haven't doubted enough.'" The article can be found here [9]
  • Another first edit. --khaosworks 17:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote made by anon IP 66.244.72.236. Paul August ☎ 06:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The link above isn't good enough for me - I need to see someone referencing "doubt-based religion" in an academic context outside of this one guy's web page. ESkog 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with ESkog. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "this one guy's web page" I think Dr. Olaskys biography speaks for its self. (66.244.72.236
  • First and only edit — mockpuppet. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the second "keep" vote for this IP. Paul August ☎ 06:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism not currently in any real use. Promotion for a new religion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism and intelectualy dishonust article (see talk) --Doc (?) 19:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I voted keep for the church but this isn't notable. Falphin 20:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more ChurchofRealitycruft. RickK 20:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons I gave at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Church of Reality. DS1953 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Paul August ☎ 20:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. 21:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Church of Reality neologism. --Etacar11 23:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Attempt at promoting/creating a new concept. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a new religion.Tobycat 00:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt that this is notable at this stage. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Martg76 09:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, have you read the article about "Faith-based"? It panders to the Christian fundamentalists, by claiming to be about "societal universal benevolence", when it's really about people who can't tell fact from fiction. Don't help them work on their

Newspeak. Don't let them censor CONCEPTS that point out the errors in their thinking. 209.237.225.251 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • This person has just added "faith-based" to the neologisms article, and made a mess of the Faith-based article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the other delete voters. Quale 02:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt it should be kept. --Xcali 19:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Is this vote ever going to end? Jimbobsween 01:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - copyvio - SimonP 14:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Chito-ryu[edit]

Text dump, not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 10:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --khaosworks 12:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Just because an article is too long or not wikified is no reason to delete it. I searched for "Chito-ryu" and clearly this is a notable style of karate with its own federations in Canada and and the U.S., local chapters and many Senseis. It is not appropriate to VfD this article, in my opinion. However, this article borrows heavily (though not an exact cut-and-paste) from the web site of the United States Chito-ryu Karate Federation [10]. The history there runs to ten pages this size, so this is heavily edited down, but many passages read the same. So there seems to be some plagiarism, perhaps even rising to the level of copyright problems WP:CP. But those issues are not to be addressed in a VfD. DS1953 13:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, I listed this as a possible copyvio on WP:CP, until we can be sure that there is Confirmation of permission. --bainer (talk) 14:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 03:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complete List of Springfield Streets, moved to Complete list of Springfield streets[edit]

What is this article? There is no information here at all! Supersaiyanplough 11:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and possible Speedy candidate. No context here (I presume it's Simponscruft) and even if there were, there's no potential content. (A list of unimportant street names in the Simpsons! Yay!) A Man In Black 11:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • With context, it is no longer a speedy candidate. Even given this, it's not worth merging into Springfield (the Simpsons) and it's certainly not worth keeping on its own. My vote stands. A Man In Black 00:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• (Speedy) delete. Even if it was a real town called Springfield, the article fails to mention the state, or even the country it's in. Also, listing streets doesn't provide the reader with any useful information when their locational relationsship isn't apparent. Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. It says "Map to come soon" but it's been lying there for about a week. --khaosworks 12:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I speedied it because there really was no context. Tony Sidaway then restored, then inserted the line about it being streets in the Simpsons Springfield, so obviously then it didn't qualify. I still stand by my original decision to speedy it as it was. That being said, I still say it should be Deleted as it is a simple listing and provides no useful information aside from that. It's not even good enough to qualify as cruft. --khaosworks 16:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good article. Restored as it surely doesn't qualify for speedy delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the parent article Springfield (the Simpsons). Would we allow a separate list a streets from any real small town? --Doc (?) 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well it's not a real small town. If Simpsons fans want this kind of thing I see nothing wrong with having it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We should, more so than this. --SPUI (talk) 21:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this isn't encyclopedic even if merged. RickK 20:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. My thought here is that the Springfield article is long enough. I would guess that most people looking at the Springfield article are not necessarily going to want to see the names of all of the streets. If the text is going to eat up a valuable 700 valuable bytes on the server, why load it every time someone looks at the Springfield article. My assumption of course is that this minutae important information will exist somewhere even if the page is deleted and not merged right now. DS1953 20:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a list of streets in Springfield is not encyclopedic per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 01:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Tradnor 02:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the data really is needed, then Merge. Vegaswikian 04:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. carmeld1 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the data are necessary for some purpose then merge to Springfield (The Simpsons)...but I can't see what a list of street names could possibly be used for. If it must be kept, rename to be more in line with our style conventions, perhaps to List of streets in Springfield (The Simpsons). --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cut/paste to Springfield and delete. Radiant_* 10:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encylopedic. -- Joolz 01:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 03:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JFFS2[edit]

Spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 11:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Rewritten. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment How is this spam? --khaosworks 12:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • How exactly is this not spam, or - more accurately - an advertisement and a promotional? - Mike Rosoft 12:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems like a legitimate file system to me, part of the Linux kernel, non-commercial, and appears to be widely used. I think I see what you mean by promotional, but this should be sent to the appropriate Cleanup crew. --khaosworks 13:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • It definitely wasn't a "promotion" (before I rewrote it). It was a copyvio of an information page on the subject written by techies for techies. I write this kind of stuff all the time. The purpose is to get someone else up to speed in a few sentences by giving him the essential information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could I ask editors please to use a little more discrimination when deciding whether list articles for deletion. Look in Wikipedia:Deletion policy for a good, clear presentation of when VfD listing is and is not necessary. This article will never be deletable, it's about part of the Linux kernel which is in use in embedded devices, such as JPL's Mars Rover prototypes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepVorash 19:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's copied from http://sources.redhat.com/, as it clearly said at the bottom of the page. Is redhat documentation public domain? RickK 20:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've rewritten it. I'd like to remind my fellow editors that we all have the capacity to edit, should we choose to exercise it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why didn't you follow the proper procedure and rewrite it in the /Temp page so that we can get the copyvio out of the history? RickK 20:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit of a bugger like that. I fixed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There seems to be plenty of information about JFFS that could be incorporated; there are respectable articles on other relatively obscure filesystems (see Comparison of filesystems for links) so there's no reason not to keep this one. Perhaps the article should be moved to JFFS and discuss both 1 and 2, though. -- Wapcaplet 23:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Some notability. JamesBurns 03:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue expansion. ElBenevolente 03:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. Falphin 17:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I guess listing on VfD may not have been an appropriate way to fix this article, but it worked anyway. Keep - and I guess the discussion can be closed now. - Mike Rosoft 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete, not notable

Jon_Davies[edit]

Vanity.—Trevor Caira 13:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity. Thue | talk 19:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatant vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion (no useful content). (Note: nominator failed to list this article on the main VfD page.) - Mike Rosoft 13:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. DS1953 13:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Dvyost 14:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete (though I'm surprised no-one notable has been called Jon Davies. There is Jonathan Davies I suppose, and several chaps called John Davies.) Dunc|☺ 18:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality in older age[edit]

I added the VFD tag because i think this is supposed to be a joke. Is there something to this? please delete unless there is actual valuable content. freestylefrappe 06:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 13:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep i think the author might have followed a red link from Human sexuality and written a stub, as opposed to having made a joke. Nateji77
• Keep. I agree with Nateji77. I just added some links on the subject matter to help anyone who can clean this up. DS1953 14:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't imagine how this ended up on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Human sexual behaviour ~~~~ 17:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'Vorash 19:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Interesting. JamesBurns 03:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean/up expand. I'm sure this topic has potential for an encyclopedia article. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the topic has potential, the current content doesn't however. --W(t) 08:41, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep -- and expand / cleanup. - Longhair | Talk 08:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, its notable and deserving of an article -CunningLinguist 23:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, title is ambiguous (could refer to old people, or earlier periods in history?) Radiant_* 10:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This page is listed on Template:Sexuality so it it is to be removed or renamed that template should be amended (or abandoned and merged into Human sexuality or Human sexual behavior — those three seem rather confused.). I agree that the name is ambiguous and a rename could be useful but the topic no doubt has some potential. --Douglas 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's totally re-written - current content borders on BJODN. Blackcats 07:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 03:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page was undeleted. Discuss at talk:Criticism of Islam. Uncle Ed 16:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam[edit]

Everything in this world is being "criticised", and we don't need articles on that. Besides, as this article is now, and as it has been for quite some time, it's just a collection of links. The intro is the only thing that isn't, and I say that part is redundant and being covered elsewhere. I'm only surprised this hasen't been up for deletion before. I say it's time. Delete Shanes 13:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a collection of links. --bainer (talk) 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This doesn't really say anything Islam doesn't already say (see "Islam and the clash of civilizations" in that article, in particular), so there isn't anything to merge, unless someone wants to save those links, which don't seem that notable to me. If this can be speedied, so much the better. -- Captain Disdain 14:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article. A simple solution is to merge the contents into main Islam article. - Mike Rosoft 15:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. - Mike Rosoft 15:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• comments if this is merged into Islam, as has now been done, then it can't be deleted for copyright reasons. In theory this is a legitimate topic and there is still no section of criticism of Islam in the Islam article, however nobody seems willing to write decent material in anything like NPOV so I'm not going to actively oppose this deletion. Until there is material to censor, nobody can cry censorship. Please note that this page used to be longer; I personally, deleted non NPOV material from the page earlier. Mozzerati 16:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• Merge with Persecution of Muslims ~~~~ 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain - but certainly don't merge with Persecution of Muslims - criticism and persecution of a religion are two different things. --Doc (?) 21:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV attack. Revolución 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useful stuf to Islam. Other stuff can go. DJ Clayworth 03:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a collection of external links. JamesBurns 03:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just a collection of links. --Arm
• Merge useful links to Islam (if any, that is) and delete - Skysmith 09:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • please note that you can't "merge and delete"; the VFD guidelines say this should be taken as "merge and keep". For copyright reasons, I plan to revert the merge if this page gets deleted. Mozzerati 09:17, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
    • If you believe this page is a copyvio then it should be deleted, otherwise I do not understand why you would revert the merge for copyright reasons: if you have written submitted the content yourself to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia foundation now owns the copyright. Axon 09:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Also you are mistating wikipedia policy: this can be read as either a Keep or Delete Axon 09:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV link collection. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV Axon 22:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Islam and then protect the page. Blackcats 06:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a highly disturbing trend. Wikipedia has been hijacked by Islamists. First some Islamist proposes a page for deletion, and then invites others to vote. Islamophilia is another example. Administrators should do something.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete not so much "no assertion of notability" as "positive assertion of non-notability. "New and emerging" indeed... Guy (Help!) 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiworld[edit]

Wikiworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Looks like spam from someone's nn philosophy project. Recent Changes for their site has about three active participants. They have 77 users total. -- Zanimum 20:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete comes close to being religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 04:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fuckz0r the whales[edit]

Non-notable Flash cartoon, Flashcruft. Delete. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hedley 17:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Newgrounds crowd might be at it again... see Lock Legion and other vfds from a few days ago... ESkog 17:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable blamcruft. Nestea 19:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable -CunningLinguist 00:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity. -- Herrhav0k 14:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

QueZTone[edit]

Looks like vanity. I can't estabilish notability; only claim to fame seems to be that he created this nickname 10 years ago. ~1200 Google hits, but most seem to be his forum postings. --Xcali 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Userfy. I'll do it right now. --khaosworks 17:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Usefied and Speedy deleted. --khaosworks 17:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 04:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Toaster Oven (GameFAQs)[edit]

Never before has the phrase "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs" been more appropriate. If this is notable within the GameFAQs community, then it can be mentioned in the main article. —Xezbeth 16:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and then Delete - I'm not a "everyday" GameFAQs visitor (just when I'm stuck on a certain video game) but there is already a section for "Message boards" on the GameFAQs article and it briefly mentioned "Toaster Oven." As the article stands, just not justifiable to be stand a lone. The reason for the deletion is that it is an orphan article --Chill Pill Bill 17:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion:

Some newcomers to the VFD process tend to combine shorthands in ways that are self-contradictory or contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policy. The following votes incorporate mutually incompatible things or are contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policy, and should be avoided:

• "Merge to Example and Delete". Article merger requires that editing history of the source article be kept, for attribution purposes as required by the GFDL. It is not allowed to delete the editing history whilst retaining this content. -- Mgm|^(talk) 17:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think it's necessary to delete or merge the article, certain boards on GameFAQs should have an article mostly because they have a history... (unsigned Wikilord)
• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete GameFAQs is notable, it's specific subforums are not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And this vote comes from a regular GameFAQs visitor. TheCoffee 03:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Martg76 09:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect wouldn't be a bad idea.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Capnography[edit]

I would like to nominate Capnography for deletion. It appears to be an advert by a quack doctor for his own medical method. I did originally put this up for speedy-delete, but one user objected, so I am submitting it for voting.

• Speedy Delete (obviously, as Im the one submitting it) ~~~~ 17:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This is bad-faith nomination by someone who seems to be a reincarnation of banned user Lir. After wrongly placing PoV and Speedy tags on this, he replaced the PoV tag three more times, despite offering no reason; I've since looked up and supplied a link to a search page on the American Society of Anesthesiologists [11]). He has no reason other than a hunch for his reason for the VfD. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not Lir, any more than you are a reincarnation of Sitite Lem. ~~~~ 17:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, p.s. I've just noticed your greek is wrong for your name, try iota rather than eta.

In Greek, the eta is pronounced the same way a iota is pronounced. Therefore there is nothing wrong with Mel Etitis' name. Btw, I abstain from voting. Aecis 23:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard did an IP lookup and decided this is not Lir. He is, however, making a lot of suspect edits. Keep. RickK 20:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm no doctor, but there is a lot of literature that looks pretty legitimate for this term. Seems to be pretty standard practice in anesthesiology. Keep. ESkog 18:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google turns up quite a number of legitimate hits. --khaosworks 17:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per khaosworks. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong speedy keep. This is part of the basic standards on ventilation of the American SOciety of Anesthesiologists. DS1953 20:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep highly respectable 34,300 Google hits including legitimate medical and government sites. A book on this subject was published by Cambridge University Press (ISBN 0521540348). If the submitter has reason to believe this medical technique is less than sound, they should let us know why (hopefully backed by some sources). It certainly isn't an advert or non-notable by any stretch of the imagination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable medical topic. JamesBurns 03:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable medical topic. Capitalistroadster 08:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, ceartaintly a notable medical topic. Falphin 17:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

BP MS 150[edit]

Charity-bike-ridecruft. Some Google hits but I doubt that charity rides across part of a US state are inherently notable. Hedley 17:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not sufficiently notible. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Remark: .808 kiloGoogles (kG) -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: Are all these links relevant to the article? Mgm|^(talk) 18:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • 423 unique Googles for "bp ms 150". Most appear to be relevant. No vote. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 14:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Takua[edit]

Legocruft. Reads like nonsense but seems to be something to do with a character from the Lego series Bionicle. Delete. Hedley 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Repair or Delete. This one reads worse than the one listed after it to the point where it makes no sense as it stands. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as no context, near nonsense. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense.Tobycat 00:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 'em all or delete 'em all. Let's just try to be consistent here folks - see next discussion. Denni☯ 18:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Merge all the Bionicle stuff into a single article. Kelly Martin 20:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged - SimonP 14:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Roodaka[edit]

More Legocruft, or more specificially Bioniclecruft. Theres a whole category of it at Category:Bionicle, full of quite poorly written articles on characters from Bionicle. Far from notable and probably worse than Pokémoncruft :/ As a side note, i'm only adding this one and i'll leave others to decide whether its worthy VfDing some of the other 57. Hedley 17:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. <Insert fiction here>-cruft is a scale issue which is defeated by the very small cost of this being on the server. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. If someone can expand it, it would be nice. But can people please stop using 'cruft' as a reason for deletion! Sonic Mew 20:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. <old coot>Back in my day, our Lego didn't come with stories. We had to make 'em up ourselves. You know, imagination.</old coot> AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First I've heard of it, but the Google hit count is respectable (1,290 hits). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Legocruft. Lego stuff was designed to be put together. (No, really, this stuff would be far more useful in one big article than in many little ones.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fictional thing from notable universe, or merge if someone thinks that's the best use of their time. Kappa 23:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. JamesBurns 04:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all into Bionicle or list of Bionicle characters. -Sean Curtin 03:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Proto 10:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LGBT Characters in The Star Trek Universe[edit]

I know this'll start a huge controversy, but whatever. This article is nothing about a long non-encyclopedic essay on why the creators of Star Trek don't have gay characters. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm half expecting a 'discrimination' stance for any keep voters. LGBT articles can go too far - Category:Gay icons genuinely annoys me. Hedley 17:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's actually an interesting essay with real world connections, and analyses the series and its attempts to introduce gay characters quite well. Could do with a less clunky title, maybe, but I don't see why it's "not encyclopedic". --khaosworks 18:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I expected visiting the article to confirm my instinct to delete, but it does at least a fairly good job of explaining an issue with appropriate citation. Wikipedia is not paper so it's not like the servers can't absorb this work. I see no reason to delete it: it doesn't violate any policies, even if it is narrow in focus. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppliment: Perhaps we could rename to simply "LGBT Characters in Star Trek"? -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with this renaming. Demi ^T/_C 18:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• Category:Gay icons and other homosexuality-related articles aren't really part of this discussion. The article needs some editing--it is not unbiased, but at the same time seems to be describing a real debate, and has sources to back at least some of this up. I'm not even sure it needs a ((cleanup)) tag, so I'm voting Keep. Demi ^T/_C 18:11, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
• Keep that is a debate that I already encountered years and years ago, and this is not an essay, but a summary of all the related things, both in the series and behind the screen. -- AlexR 18:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I say that almost reluctantly, because it's a long, thorough, well-written and presumably well-researched article. However, the whole thing could basically be summarized by "Star Trek doesn't have any gay characters" though it takes quite a few paragraphs to get there. Much of the padding material consists of speculation and descriptions of characters who kinda-sorta might have been gay. At best, it's a well-intentioned article which really needs to document its sources better. At worst, it veers dangerously close to libel: "Some fans feel that...Berman and Paramount of selling out the progressive Roddenberry dream in favor of contemporary bigotry and a hypocritical commercial cop-out." See also Weasel words. I definitely feel this is an interesting subject and should be posted and discussed somewhere, but isn't an encyclopedic topic. If it absolutely must stay, I suggest squeezing it down into a paragraph or two and putting it in one of the main Trek articles or into a GLBT in culture article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite somewhat as the insertion of sections looks somewhat forced in the flow of the text, and they should be able to be read out of order. ~~~~ 19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Liberally condense and Merge. There's not much meat to this article, and most of it is original research couched in language like "some fans believe...", etc. This whole concept could easily be summarized in a paragraph or section in one of the main Star Trek articles, such as Society and Star Trek. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but revise to remove original research and filter for possible POV. There were some attempts to add LGBT sections to each of the series articles, but I think the issue is best left discussed all at once, as is the case here. I don't know if it's necessary to have subcategories. 23skidoo 20:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why not? Hooray cruft~! Sam Spade 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow. Brilliant article, could do with some POV tweaks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Why not move to a title that does not assert that there are, in fact, such characters? Although I would also support deleting. I'm wavering on whether it is encyclopedic, but the current title doesn't make sense. 68.165.6.18 02:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, that was me. platypeanArchcow 02:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could use some work, but it's quite a bit better than a lot of articles here. Give it some time. Ground Zero 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. this article is interesting, and although it could use some work and perhaps a name change, it is informative and discusses an issue that apparently exists in the Trekkie community. Bonus Onus 03:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: interesting. Give it a better title, though, without an unpronounceable acronym that sounds like a kind of sandwich. No Account 03:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting. JamesBurns 04:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, especially notable given the press coverage received when DS9 scripted a lesbian kiss. Xoloz 05:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but the article does need plenty of references to back up it's claims, otherwise my vote should be changed to a merge. Axon 13:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is a good one and has plently of references to back up what it claims. I fear that some homophobia is at work in the efforts to delete the page. (unsigned comment by 216.239.18.174.) Xoloz 21:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Well argued and interesting essay on a legitimate and not particularly POV. carmeld1 23:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems well-written and encyclopedic to me, not to mention notable and definitely tied into real-world events. -CunningLinguist 00:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It comes close to being original reserach, but doesn't quite cross the line IMHO. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• An interesting topic, and a fairly unbiased approach. Oddly enough, by restricting itself to the TV series, it ignores that controversy about a TNG movie character who was supposed to be "gay", and the overt gayness of one of the SCE characters, in the (supposedly) authorised Pocket e-books series. --Simon Cursitor 07:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the article now addresses Lt. Hawk, of Star Trek: First Contact, the "almost" gay movie character, under the TNG section. I'm not sure if this is a recent edit. Xoloz 08:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I am going to have a section on the Star Trek comic books/novels and one on the video games. Both are brief. I fail to see how my article has "gone to far" it is simply explaing the factual history behind the controversy (among fans) over how the franchise has dealt with LGBT people, and why. (This comment added by 199.17.94.37 Demi ^T/_C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))
• Keep. This is a valid and ongoing point of contention regarding the Star Trek universe. -Seth Mahoney 00:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Interesting, well-researched and important because of the iconic status of this TV franchise. --Ian Pitchford 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As said above, this article is quite interesting and well-researched. --Doradus 15:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment for the author: I would like to see as many references as possible. For one thing, it will help to prevent this page from reappearing on VfD. It can also help people who are interested in the topic do research of their own. Thanks for the contribution! -Seth Mahoney 19:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I absolutely agree with Ian. --62.245.160.218 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, as long as this essay can be turned into a proper article, removing speculation and adding properly referenced facts. Exploding Boy 22:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Wikipedia:No original research and it appearing to be original research. I'm surprised no one has linked this policy yet, but it's clear to me that it should be deleted. In fact, I'd consider renominating this for VFD when this one is up simply because this has a) been over looked and b) has a lot of votes. Other than saying "there are no gays in Star Trek", I don't see much that isn't original research. Cburnett 06:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I think you can safely assume that most people who voted here know about the "no original research" policy. Hence, re-nominating this article for deletion would be completely unnecessary, to say the least. -- AlexR 07:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has plenty of sources - they just need to be worked into the text. --Ian Pitchford 10:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Highlights an important aspect of Star Trek in popular culture. The article has plenty of references that need to be linked and referenced more thorougly..Melvakar 11:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is an important slice of science fiction Americana. The article has provided numerous cites to back up each and every quote and statement.
• Keep. Stays just the right side of the original research line. OpenToppedBus - Talk 14:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:I don't think that this should be an article merely because it's not encyclopedic; additionally, while some of the information presented here is useful, much of it is mere speculation or discussion thereof. Moreover, I don't think that the title is appropriate for Wikipedia- not everyone knows what LGBT stands for (I myself can only hazard a guess as to its meaning given the context and still haven't figured out the T). In summary, this article should not continue to exist as it is. M412k 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The T is for "Texan". ;-) Ground Zero 14:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kpet - SimonP 14:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

IT Audit Resources[edit]

Advert. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 17:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not an advert, part of a school project. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Information Technology Audit - Regulation and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Backup Systems and Recovery. Tentative Keep, using the same reasoning I gave in the latter discussion. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons. In the end, however, it still needs to be written in an encyclopedic style, clas project or not. DS1953 20:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Interesting project. JamesBurns 04:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I tried to read the article. It starts without any context. It also reads as original research. It also appears to present opinions as fact. Given this, it would seem to be a Delete unless it gets a major overhaul. Not deleting, still leaves the question of this being an encylopedic topic. I'm not sure. Vegaswikian 04:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Is this a copyvio? It looks like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere. Average Earthman 09:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopaedic. Comes off like a term paper and would need a lot of copy editing to make it encyclopedic. There are nuggets of useful information throughout, but more as notes for other articles than in some rehabilitated form of this one. I'd vote keep if "This article should be transwikied to Wikitermpapersource" were an option; anyone up for starting a new sister project ... :-) 66.167.141.93 04:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (contributor since May 2003).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Clockhouse Primary school[edit]

Crap article about another nn school. Dunc|☺ 18:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Finally, a school article I'm familiar with. It's not called "Clockhouse Primary school", it's either Clockhouse Infant School or Clockhouse Junior School, so move it to one of those when this article is kept. —Xezbeth 19:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Xezbeth, and move, or (very much second choice) merge with London Borough of Havering, the Local Education Authority. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, please note that Xezbeth has not voted. RickK 21:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I expect that the closer of this listing will be able to determine whether a person who says "move it to one of those when this article is kept" is voting or not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We're going down to the preschool level now? --Carnildo 22:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Many schools do educate young children. This one happens to be a complex of two schools (infant and junior) that occupy the same premises and educate children up to age 11. There is a nursery, but what of it? How does this affect the fact that it educates 11-year-olds? Should a university that shares premises with a kindergarten be deletable? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, wikipedia:important topic. Kappa 23:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if not Delete. Verifiable is not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 04:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, not important to a significant enough number of people outside the immediate geographical area to warrant a separate article, and since Collier Row is so short it can happily accomodate it. Average Earthman 08:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, wikipedia:important topic. SchmuckyTheCat 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As was 11111 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/11111). "Verifiable and NPOV" are not our sole criteria. In every case so far, people espousing this rationale have actually turned out to have a different rationale when pressed. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11, for example.) Please explain your actual rationale. Uncle G 09:11, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
    • True enough. My rationale is broader but I presumed that this topic had already been discussed to death so I haven't generally elaborated in the past. Thank you, nonetheless, for your interest in my vote. Firstly, Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Secondly, I believe schools are encyclopedic. Lastly, Verifiable and NPOV articles can be written and Jimbo says Verifiable and NPOV are enough. For more detail, see: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Clockhouse Primary school#Rationale. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • With respect, I think you only needed to point out that the article was "verifiable, NPOV and about a school". :) Wikipedia hasn't deleted a single school in over seventy nominations for deletion, and looking at the 25-or-so pending discussions I don't think that's about to change soon. I have no idea why anyone would want to vote on a number article; presumably people who are interested in numbers know which ones they think are interesting and which not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 03:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Apart from the ones that don't endure, and are closed. Uncle G 09:11, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Merge into Collier Row and delete - Skysmith 09:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and refer to wikipedia:important Yuckfoo 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, duh. Ketsuban (is 1337) 03:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, especially the last two under "Keep". Unfocused 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. If delete fails, merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 15:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Proto 10:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Glory Farm Primary School[edit]

Primary school vanity. Interesting fact - they have had 2 headteachers, and it only gets worse... Dunc|☺ 18:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Lovely article, though it could do with a bit of trimming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Tony, do you really believe any article which uses first person is lovely? RickK 21:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Various stylistic quibbles aside, I do really think it is a lovely article. The solution to bad style is editing, not deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It definately needs to be put into the third-person. But that is no need for deletion. I am not swaying either way, so no vote for the moment. Sonic Mew 21:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • In case it will help, I've copy edited for third person. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, wikipedia:important topic, nice article although needs cleanup. Kappa 23:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but it does need cleanup. Reading the article you wonder why it is a VfD selection. Vegaswikian 04:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reading the article makes it clear why it is a VfD selection. Quale 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge a trimmed down version to the appropriate geographical article. I mean, seriously, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, of what interest is it exactly that we need 'When it is sunny and nice they go on the field and when it is wet they go on the playground'? This sort of patently obvious statement is what you get when you start judging articles by length. If the authors want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd rather they expanded the Bicester article than write overlong websites for their primary school (don't they have their own website for this sort of thing?). Average Earthman 08:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is too much.  Grue  13:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless blather. Gamaliel 15:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but it does need cleanup. Reading the article you wonder why it is a VfD selection. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. -CunningLinguist 00:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as necessary. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Bicester and delete - Skysmith 09:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please but clean up too Yuckfoo 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is improved by keeping this. Nobody said everyone has to read every article they find. If you're bored, move on. --Unfocused 05:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. If delete fails, Merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Primary schools are almost always not notable. Proto 11:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Normal keep. If the article doesn't meet your personal criteria for style, try editing it next time. —RaD Man (talk) 22:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mayflower Primary School[edit]

Advert for a non-notable school. Dunc|☺ 18:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Gosh, this is getting crazy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. -- Vsion 21:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio. RickK 21:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewritten. Please vote on the stub, not the deleted article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine. Delete, non-notable school. RickK 23:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: What do you mean, non-notable? Its a Singaporean school. We also need it as a starting point for development, not to mention, its one of the original schools of the Ang Mo Kio town, which was only developed until recently in the late 1970's. I will work on the article if I have time, but the idea that its not distinguished from "thousands of other schools" doesn't apply because this school isn't in the United States. -- Natalinasmpf 03:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you asserting that, unlike the United States, Singapore only has a very few schools? Education in Singapore begs to differ. Uncle G 05:42, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • Does this also suggest we should create articles on, say, bus drivers in Liechtenstein since there aren't many of them ? Average Earthman 08:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Vegaswikian 04:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 05:44, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Delete. Large number of students, but no evidence of notability. Quale 07:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ang Mo Kio. Average Earthman 08:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.  Grue  13:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 15:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gosh, this is getting crazy. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Ang Mo Kio and delete - Skysmith 09:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools belong in Wikipedia. Important, NPOV, and verifiable. Unfocused 05:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable school. If that fails, merge into relevant article; I nominate trivia, but any will do. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Compromise. Delete and create new article on Schools in Ang Mo Kio, then include this school and subsequently add other schools in the town. -Hmib 16:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not just vote keep and move the school article to Schools in Ang Mo Kio, which will keep the article history, then add other schools? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Cos we don't need 50 pages, one for each school in Ang Mo Kio. To do so would be like creating an article for every housing development in a town. -Hmib 23:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • My proposal would result in one single page for all schools in Ang Mo Kio but without the unnecessary step of deleting the current text and its history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Proto 11:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cast my vote.Mr Tan 14:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to be one of the more famous schools (Nanyang, Tao Nan). Frankchn 02:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alfred Elementary School[edit]

NN. D. Dunc|☺ 18:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. RickK 21:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC) (I have refactored my comments - RickK 20:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment This was a response to my inappropriate statement about the listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What an utterly bizarre user. --SPUI (talk) 21:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Hedley 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 22:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and important information. Kappa 23:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. No Account 03:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Alfred, Maine. Vegaswikian 04:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 07:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Alfred, Maine#Schools. Average Earthman 08:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless.  Grue  13:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Deserves one line in the town entry, not its own article. Gamaliel 15:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Phroziac 15:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What an utterly bizarre vote. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, cleanup -CunningLinguist 00:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Alfred, Maine and delete - Skysmith 09:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important, verifiable, and NPOV. That's good enough for me. Unfocused 05:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP and people need to stop doing this. Ketsuban (is 1337) 03:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please stop this Yuckfoo 22:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why does it deserve deletion? Whoever added it took the time to add a nice picture, and it's not notably usless like the Sam Toupin page. -- Quagscorner 04:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Orchard Elementary School District[edit]

Interesting fact: it has students. Otherwise not notable. Dunc|☺ 18:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. RickK 21:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh for heaven's sake. --SPUI (talk) 21:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Okay, it looks like I've expressed myself in an inappropriate way and this has only served to raise the emotional temperature. I apologise for my inappropriate behavior on this deletion thread an others. I'm deleting my unnecessary comments and apologise to all involved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • On the merge option, although I would prefer keep, if merged the current content is probably best merged in to List of school districts in Santa Clara County, California. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts are a mergist alternative to having information on each school in separate articles, unfortunately this district only has one school but it would break up the structure to delete it. Kappa 23:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. No Account 03:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Weak because it is so weak of an article. Just adding the list of schools should be all that it would take to make this a Keep. Vegaswikian 04:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Alpine County, California since it only has one school. Average Earthman 08:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. Oh for heaven's sake. SchmuckyTheCat 20:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable -CunningLinguist 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools and their organizational hierarchies are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Alpine County, California or keep. Not much content here, but the school district (as opposed to a school itself) is definitely of local notability in my opinion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, kindergartens begin to appear in addition to schools. Merge into Santa Clara County, California and delete - Skysmith 09:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This school district in Santa Clara County, California was originally misfiled under Alpine County, which accounts for the different merge recommendations in some votes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Celestianpower 17:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is already a school district article for an unusual district. One school in a district all by itself. I've never heard of that before. LSNED --Unfocused 05:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are students there? You don't say. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts are notable. --BaronLarf 02:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Kathy Caraway Elementary School[edit]

More crap. Dunc|☺ 18:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain on the usual schools debate - but can you explain what is 'crap' are you suggesting that the article is bogus? --Doc (?) 20:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I refer Mr Dunc to WP:SCH, which contains advice he may find more productive than his current activities. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. May I refer Mr Sidaway to the discussion at WP:SCH in which he has been repeatedly told that the page is neither policy nor guideline. RickK 21:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • We'll have to agree to differ on this. Clearly it's a guideline, as it's widely cited. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, we disagree. May I direct you to my "non-notable primary school" guideline, which has been much more widely cited. Quale 07:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Cited widely, but utterly failed to prevail. Seventy closed school VfD discussions since April 22, and not one single deleted school. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The point being, that by your definition WP has two guidelines in direct conflict with each other. In fact WP:SCH is not a wikipedia guideline. "Guideline" has a technical meaning in WP which WP:SCH doesn't meet. Quale 02:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • To the best of my knowledge, there are no such technical meanings that apply here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article contains no useful information. --Carnildo 22:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, contains useful information and a nice picture. Kappa 23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. No Account 03:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but it still needs cleanup. A nice start. Vegaswikian 04:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable primary school. Quale 07:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with local geographical article or create one for the area. As it stands, is far too granular to stand on its own. Average Earthman 08:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Hee hee We'll soon be getting articles on daycares, and the usual crew will be voting to keep. Denni☯ 18:47, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep I should start making stubs about daycare centers soon.SchmuckyTheCat 20:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. If there is more than one primary school in this district (particularly ones that feed to the same middle school), this seems like an ideal candidate for a merged article. - DS1953 21:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have created Round Rock Independent School District and it would be logical to merge the school information there if the outcome of this discussion is to merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable -CunningLinguist 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions, and are therefore inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 04:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Round Rock Independent School District and delete - Skysmith 09:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Delete after merge in this case would probably breach GFDL as there's a non-trivial amount of material in the article. I can't see the point of deleting the link in any case as it would only end up being recreated. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this article seems nice to me Yuckfoo 21:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think something that couldn't achieve consensus by discussion or voting has been demonstrated by this series of nominations. Unfocused 05:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. If delete fails, merge with local geographical article, or Trivia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn as well). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Olga Souza[edit]

• Delete Lacks notability Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 18:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Vorash 19:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Falphin 19:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #1. I think I remember that song... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oops.. my bad, VfD withdrawn Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename as Corona (musician) as that was the name that the hit was released under. Capitalistroadster 09:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The David and Rhyanne Comedy Hour[edit]

Surprisingly, this television show gets 0 google hits, other than two wikipedia ones. That's low even by public-access standards. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rhyanne Wheat for one of the hosts. —Xezbeth 19:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Some of this doesn't even make sense, e.g. it's called a Comedy Hour and is "a comedy-themed talk show" but the article says it has a "serious tone"?!? What the heck? Even if we're assuming this serious comedy show exists, a public-access show would have to be really notable to get an article on its own. With no Google hits and only 6 episodes over its month-long run, this one just doesn't have what it takes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof of the show can be found. Its a decent article(despite being contradictory) but there is nothing on it at all. Even local shows usually have a google hit or 2. Falphin 19:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I posted a comment on his/her talk page. Falphin 19:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 04:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Allow The show actually did exist and I watched it several times (5) when it aired earlier this year. It was a live call-in show and I did call in several times. Though it was called a comedy hour the hosts (David and Rhyanne) did reserve time for the serious dicussion of the topics they were ridiculing during their episode, which did include abortion (they had some whack-o pro-life nut on) and suicide (it just happened to be some angsty kid for this one). Rhyanne did go on to be part of several other local shows as a guest for months following and another season of the show is alloted for next season's line up according to Comcast. They hosts (David and Rhyanne) tried several times during the season to get big name politicians from the area on such as (Gov.) Mayor Wilder. It would be good to see an article like this to remain on Wikipedia for it makes the site feel like a place where one can go to find knowledge even on one's own community. Jahar 01:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above users only edits. JamesBurns 07:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No verifiable information even after on VfD for 5 days. The included link to a cable TV company has no mention of this show on its website. Doubtful notability even if verified anyway. Quale 16:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hougana[edit]

No notability Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity. Doesn't meet any WP:MUSIC criteria. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 21:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --PHenry
• Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 23:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 04:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mel Etitis (recreation of deleted article) --cesarb 02:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicole Arsenault[edit]

Appears to be vanity. Dunc|☺ 19:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The original speedy seems to have been correct, so far as I can see; there's not enough here to say who she is or what exactly she does ("model" covers a multitude of sins). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under criteria #1. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Nevermind, I know more about her than this. 198.49.31.230 19:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as noted by Mel Etitis and Andrew Lenahan. DS1953 21:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedyable as recreation of the vfd'd Nichole Arsenault. Meelar (talk) 21:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've speedied it. I'm not sure how to close a VfD that's ended like this; anyone? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lazlow[edit]

Is Lazlow really a talk show host? If so, can someone flesh this out a bit? Or should it just be deleted. Shoaler 20:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• A fictional talk show host from Grand Theft Auto 3, and as the article is content-free then speedy delete. Keep now. —Xezbeth 20:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• A DJ on GTA -yes. Fictional - no. He is the host of Techno-File, a nationally syndicated radio program. www.lazlow.com Keep DS1953 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You learn something new every day. Still, the article as it stands is speediable. —Xezbeth 21:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Someone should expand this article - DS1953 seems to know a bit - as the fact that this guy was good enough to be hired for a huge video game establishes notability. Harro5 22:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded this article somewhat - please have another look and try to expand on what is there. Thanks. Harro5 23:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable fictional DJ, also moderately notable real person. Kappa 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lazlow Jones is most definitely real, and even if he wasn't doing a radio show that is syndicated on 80 stations in America, considering how much critical acclaim and attention the GTA series' radio shows have garnered, being the guy who co-wrote, produced and acted in them oughta make him notable enough. -- Captain Disdain 00:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've always wondered about this guy. Maybe if the article is fleshed out I may learn more. --Bletch 01:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nationally syndicated radio hosts are notable enough for mine and he has done other stuff of note as well. Capitalistroadster 09:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Sara Scorner[edit]

I'm not certain, but I think this is either a fantasy or a hoax. First off there's no Google hits for "Sara Scorner". About.com claims that Margaret Hughes was the first woman to act on the English stage, in Shakespeare's Othello in 1660 (14 years before the article says Sara Scorner was born). And the external link in the article goes a site which seems to have extensions for The Sims...or something. I'm guessing this is some character from some sort of history fantasy...thingy.

I think I'm trying to say unverifiable. sjorford →•← 20:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed with the unverifiable part. Seems to be a slightly elaborate hoax. Kel-nage 21:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Motherland[edit]

• delete to wiktionary. Dicdef in its best. Also, the definitions seems to be quite suspicious to me. I looked up a couple of dictionaries at hand and didn't see the "metropolitan state" meaning presented in the article as main. Native Englis speakers: please verify. mikka (t) 21:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Err, "metropolitan state"? That doesn't appear anywhere in any version of the article that I can see. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:15, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • metropolitan state redirects to colony. I think that mikkalai is referring to the first definition given, namely a mother country in contrast to its colonies. If that is the case, then, yes, in the sense of an "origin country" motherland does have this meaning. Uncle G 05:55, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
      • Are you sure that a son of a British colonel born and brought up in India would call Misty Albion his motherland? (I am not arguing here, I just want to confirm the usage). Of course, Britain is the motherland for the colonel himself; but in most generic meaning, rather than as a term to refer to a state that owns the colony, IMO. Once again, I don't see this usage in the dictionaries on my bookshelf. The same colonel may be recruited to Foreign Legion and fight in Congo, but he will not refer to Belgium as Motherland while sitting in Leopoldville. mikka (t) 18:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It's a good question. I don't know offhand. Finding quotations to demonstrate exact real-world use is something that Wiktionary will have to do, now that the article has been transwikied. In the mean time, we have to deal with the article here at Wikipedia. Uncle G 22:32, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Move to wikitionary(redirect to Fatherland) or Expand. The article could have potential but isn't import for nowFalphin 17:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 22:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• McBot has kindly transwikied the article to Wiktionary, for the Wiktionarians to use as they see fit. In the mean time, the question becomes what to do with this article. mikkalai has created a shiny new Motherland (disambiguation) article, with a range of things, from song albums to political parties, to disambiguate between. The bulk of motherland is translations and synonyms, which Wiktionary will deal with, leaving not very much encyclopaedia content at all. How about Keep and replace with the current contents of Motherland (disambiguation) to turn motherland into an equal-weight disambiguation? Uncle G 22:32, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep agree with UncleG. JamesBurns 07:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and exapnd. The concept of a motherland is a historical one. Leanne 10:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, article has potential. Megan1967 06:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Lachatdelarue (content was: '((db|Blank, vanity))') --cesarb 02:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James michael gregg[edit]

Page was created by user with same name. Therefore, should be userfied. Kel-nage 21:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Content already exists at userpage, and I've left a friendly note on his talk page. Meelar (talk) 21:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. If anybody wants to view the content, there is an entry at BJAODN. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chair racing[edit]

Non-notable "sport" Denni☯ 21:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

• Delete unless rewritten. Strange as it sounds, this is notable, but the current article isn't worth keeping. Hedley 21:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. It's not made up, I've done it before. The current article needs a complete rewrite, but this is a notable enough subject. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely needs a good rewrite. Also, the distinction needs to be made between wheelchair racing and office chair racing. I have witnessed both, and "chair racing" can be used to describe either of them. WPPWAH 22:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete Even if the two above have done/witnessed it it doesn't seem notable. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable game. Martg76 09:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, unsourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not made up but not notable MarkS 19:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 (nonsense) --cesarb 02:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honjelhinelsmith[edit]

Nonsense, User:80.43.97.69 created it and keeps removing the speedy tag. --Etacar11 21:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like a speedy delete to me, even if User:80.43.97.69 does remove the notice. DS1953 22:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't know what else to do, he/she removed the speedy tag the minute I put it back up, several times. Maybe its bedtime now... --Etacar11 22:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Dancer[edit]

Delete article. It's a vanity-type page for a work by an unpublished, non-notable author. MakeRocketGoNow 21:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "Published online" almost invariably means "not really published". There are a few different things called "Star Dancer" which could probably have an article, but this ain't one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Riedesel[edit]

Vanity, un-notable surname written by an author of the same name. I've left a friendly message on their talk page. -- UkPaolo 21:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, how do you know the name is un-notable as I had no chance to complete it? Yours truly, the author-to-be, would not appear in it. Paul Riedesel, Ph.D.

I accept your point. I see that you have just added further info to the article, and it is clear there are historical connections, which perhaps do merit a Wikipedia entry. Still not entirely convinced about creating an article on your own surname, though, however notable, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy site for you to post family history, however detailed or interesting. It's nothing personal - if you view the page history you'll note I even wikified the original version of the article for you! Personally, I think it would be better suited to your own user page, but we'll see other Wikipedians valued comments and how the vote works out... UkPaolo 22:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a notable German noble family. Please allow articles more than ten minutes to grow after they were cretated, especially when authored by a new user. Zocky 22:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I allowed time for the article to grow - I watched the article and commented when further info was added to the page. However, I maintain that the information is promotion of the user's surname (and their website, linked at the end of the article). Yes its accurate, detailed, and maybe even interesting, but I'm not sure it is what Wikipedia should be about. It sets a huge precedent for people with numerous surnames to start generating articles - plenty of people know their family history these days. Are we now saying that providing there was nobility somewhere in the past, such genealogy articles are wanted? UkPaolo 07:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I share the last name to be sure, but have no personal connection with any of the noble Riedesels until 1400 or earlier. And yes my web site is focused on genealogy, but this article includes next to no genealogical information.--Paul Riedesel 12:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems notable and encyclopedic. Tufflaw 22:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, precedent and discussion of names calls for articles on names to be disambiguation pages, not etymologies on the meanings and histories of names. RickK 22:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see numerous entries in the Category:German nobility that are not dissimilar. --Paul Riedesel 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see this as an etymology on the meaning and history of the name (I don't necessarily agree that should be excluded in any event). Its an article on a family that at this point appears to merit an article. DS1953 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• www.riedesel.org claims that the Riedesels ruled a state within the Holy Roman Empire until Napoeonic times. If that information is accurate, it is definite keep.
  • Forgot to sign this vote. Martg76 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that the German Wikipedia de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riedesel includes a similar article on this family.--Paul Riedesel 17:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ian hedger[edit]

(This nom originally made Jun 4, was never closed, multiple apparent sock puppet votes. I've taken the liberty of addending all anon votes. --FCYTravis 08:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Hi, i am the author of one of the below "keep" comments. i would like to adress the sock puppets accusation... im not sure what exactly sock puppets means, but i guess it's something to do with all the votes being from the one person? you may find with a little research, perhaps contact the institution mentioned on the ian hedger page (st. bede's college, mentone, victoria, australia), that many of these comments come from students. they have heard about the page through word of mouth, and are supporting the TRUE story about their friend/acquantance. You may also find that the two entries from the same IP adress are entries from step brothers, using two computers on the same network. I urge that these facts be considered before this page is dismissed as a hoax or a joke. Before dismissing this, someone please do some research. Brother Paul Kenjamin, F.S.C. - anon comment by User:203.31.184.154 - only four edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page.

No relevant google hits, smells like hoax. Denni☯ 21:33, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

REMEMBER TO START YOUR THREAD WITH THE WORD 'KEEP' OR 'DELETE'... not 'DON'T DELETE'.

• Delete vanity hoax (it would seem). And not funny if it is. --Etacar11 23:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, hoax, not notable...take your pick. Tobycat 01:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard of this story through word of mouth... Hoax or not, it's an urban legend worth keeping. - anon vote by User:211.28.164.142
• Keep Oh god no! this is no hoax, i warn... this kid is a lethal fucka, anyone who has seen a red flash in their backyards, a white stain on there ironing boards, a homosexual spirit in their dreams... poor bastards, he'll get you soon enough...User:Darren Doukas 07:35, 6 july 2005 (FBI , CIA , CRIMINAL INTENT) - anon vote by User:220.237.182.178 - both edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD.

• Keep This is no hoax. I am a Social Work student at Monash University doing a paper on teenage risk factors. My teacher, Dr. Max Liddell actually referred me to the 'Ian Hedger' case study in Australia. I couldn’t seem to find any good resources for the Ian Hedger case on Yahoo or Google, nor my own library, but i stumbled upon this excerpt here. If you are interested more about the Ian hedger case you should try emailing the social work department at Monash. Regards, Marcus Binge - anon vote by User:144.132.3.4 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.

• Keep Ian Hedger is an old school urban ledgend. Me and my wife use to scare the kids with halloween stories about the firey headed Ian Hedger. -Nick - anon vote by User:220.237.34.75 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.

• Keep I agree with the above statements. (i go to Mckinnion High near where these events have supposedly taken place)I have heard on many occasions of the Ian Hedger urban legend and have discussed it with many of my friends. wheather the events are true or not, this entry has validity in that it is a well know urban legend around the melbourne area. If it is true i pray for the poor soul and hope i never come across him. May it teach us all that bullying gets us no where. Will Drummond - anon vote by User:61.68.143.158 - only edit to Wikipedia is on this VFD.

• Keep The Ian Hedger case is very much a true one, I was once a friend of this tortured soul back in '98. he was a great person when i knew him, full of life, with a smile that could melt an iceberg. it is unfortunate that we have not crossed paths since his departure from our youth group, because he was one of the only people i knew that could make a man with my condition feel normal again. he will be in my heart for eternity. - D.M.Wenckowski - anon vote by User:211.28.164.142, the user's second vote on this page, so struck through.

• Keep I can't believe this story is being considered for deletion. I think one will find over the next few years a number of websites and articles being made in devotion to this story. The myths surrounding this case are simply untrue and unjustified. A depressed boy goes missing, and immediately people begin pawning off murders onto him. The chances of the boy still being alive are virtually zero, and it is my belief that he has found a happier place. Ian Hedger must not be forgotten, and I hope anyone who tries to remove this tribute to him, or deface it, suffers a similar fate. - Brother Paul Kenjamin, F.S.C. - anon vote by User:203.31.184.154 - only three edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page.

• Delete - Sockpuppet limit reached exceeded. --FCYTravis 08:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because what the hell is a "scientician"? -- BD2412 ^talk 08:12, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Quote from http://www.olympus.net/personal/ptmaccon/pif/issues/other/dict_enviro_lang.html:

Scientist, n. ... 3. Sometimes referred to as Scientician a. Term describing the political corruption of a scientist. b. Person working in the sciences willing to alter and/or ignore observations and research to conform to the political correct thinking or policy of any particular age.

• Delete. Lowercased surname, votes by sockpuppets. This should count as "case closed". — JIP | Talk 08:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense supported by multiple sockpuppets, potential personal sabotage - Skysmith 09:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, with full military honours. Alphax ^τεχ 10:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Two unreliable Google hits. If legit as claimed, this would've shown up on missing persons sites. If it's true, those organizations should be the target of this campaign. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE (in capitals as indicated above)Dunc|☺ 11:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I hate sockpuppets. jglc | t | c 13:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. --Xcali 14:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sock-puppets make a more eloquent case for deletion than I ever could. --Scimitar 14:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per sock puppets. Ashibaka (tock) 16:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/BJAODN. The many sockpuppets must mean something. ral315 17:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, vanity. MysteryDog 20:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Martg76 22:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, aawesome storiez keep it up - anon vote by User:70.58.91.15 - only edits to Wikipedia are on this VFD and the page and vandalism on other pages see Contributions.
• Delete, nonsense, and sockpuppets. Sasquatch′ ↔Talk↔Contributions 22:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wha' a ghreatte guyman he be...--64.229.92.23 01:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (does this vote really need to be clarified?)
• Delete. And sentence the sock puppets to watch a 24 hour The Wiggles marathon. Mr Bound 01:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's funny, I was just dealing with this same sort of garbage from another anon. Mr. Billion 05:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete – if it's a hoax, they could at least have written it up in a more tantalizing manner. If it's not, they could at least have written it up in a more tantalizing manner. --Mothperson 14:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by User:Shanes. Kappa 20:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 31, 2005[edit]

Page should be deleted because this page is redundant. See May 2005. Splintercellguy 21:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete really pointless--Doc (?) 22:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We've got May 31 and May 2005 already and this belongs in Deep Throat (sp?) or Mark Felt anyway. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 23:18, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. DS1953 23:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplication. JamesBurns 04:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I'm deleting it now. Shanes 05:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 21:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truprint[edit]

Comment for now. Looks like advertising - anyone from the U.K. know if this is notable? Tufflaw 21:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Truprint are pretty famous for developing pictures here. It also contains criticism of Truprint, so I'd hardly call it advertising. Kel-nage 22:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Major company. Their envolopes are well known. NSR 22:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't advertising by any stretch of the imagination. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is true, notable, and probably wasn't made to advertise. It is a decent liitle article. No ned to delete it. Sonic Mew 13:47, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - its not advertising, a nice l'il article about the company. Not amazingly notable, maybe, but it's a well-enough known company in the UK, and I see no reason at all to remove the article. UkPaolo 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

North american sex god[edit]

Vanity, autobiographical, unverifiable Kel-nage 22:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This has already been speedy deleted for being patent nonsense. Nohat 22:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two Minute Warning[edit]

Non-notable, vanity Denni☯ 22:29, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

• Delete - nn. Kel-nage 22:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 23:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE and REDIRECT to American football. 132.205.45.148 20:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(page moved to Gauze (band); nearly all inbound links to Gauze are referring to the material.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gauze[edit]

There is no entry in allmusic or artistdirect for a band called Gauze. This title should probably be reserved, anyway. RickK 22:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• There used to be an article about the material gauze, it was probably transikied and deleted or something. Anyway this band has 4 albums on amazon.co.jp [12], 2 of which are re-releases. Half of this album was recorded "live in Scotland" suggesting they have some international appeal, or a least a travel budget. Keep Kappa 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 19:29, 2005 May 12 Pending deletion script deleted "Gauze" (Was marked with ((pending deletion)) )
  • If it had been transwikied, it would have been recorded in the transwiki log. There's no mention of it there. There's also no article in the transwiki namespace at Wiktionary (the most likely transwiki target), and since Wiktionary already has its own article on the word, and has had for well over a year, it wouldn't have been a transwiki to Wiktionary candidate anyway. Its deletion wasn't anything to do with transwikification. Uncle G 06:19, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Just as a comment, there's also a page called GAUZE, so if it is to stay, someone should add a dablink at the top. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Gauze is a notable hardcore band in japan and is renouned in the underground hardcore scene. I think this article has potential, and i vote against deletion. Marxxxx 20:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • Above users only edits have been on the Gauze article. JamesBurns 07:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The amazon.co.jp link indicates notability. Martg76 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gauze are one of the most well-known and long running japanese punk bands, the article needs to be cleaned up and probably renamed "gauze_(band)", but it should not be deleted. (Sorry about the edit on this comment, I forgot to sign in) Tombride 20:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Please delete, since gauze is mainly known for the surgical "cotton" material.
  • That's not a reason to delete, since the article can simply be moved to Gauze (band) if someone want to write something about the material. Kappa 20:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zeidy Molnar[edit]

The creator insist on removing the speedy template, so lets take this through vfd... obviously not notable. Thue | talk 22:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. --Canderson7 22:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Non notable. Kel-nage 23:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sure I read her autobiography recently! No? Seriously delete this child --Doc (?) 23:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete icky vanity. --Etacar11 23:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete get rid of this, it is of no value whatsoever. --William Flowers 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was undecided: 7:7, so the article is KEPT

Alessandra[edit]

del. Improper usage of disambig page: neither of the persons is identified as "Alessandra". the proper name would be List of persons with the first name Alessandra. Are we going to have such ones? mikka (t) 22:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete concur --Doc (?) 23:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unlike Dannii and Cher, neither of these people are commonly known solely by their given name. Disambiguation page without anything to disambiguate. Delete. Uncle G 06:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep. First, it is useful, for anyone who can only remember a first name and want to know what encyclopedic people have that name. Second, there is the precedent set by the many, many other first name disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, such as Aaron, Ada, Alice, Alicia, Alison, Alva, Alvin, Amanda, Amy, Ashton, and those are just the first names I can think of off the top of my head. Compare with articles like Michael which have long lists of people with that first name. Third, the list is expandable: there are no doubt more encyclopedic people named Alessandra and probably places named Alessandra as well. Fourth, the article is expandable, by giving the history/entymology/source of the name Alessandra. Fifth, it's a disambiguation page. Wikipedia is not paper, so how is this hurting the project? —Lowellian (talk) 12:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are mising the point. Disambig pages are to list identical terms. Ada contains list that are known as "Ada". The same is with Aaron (disambiguation). If some list hase something else, it mst be cleaned up. Some of these lists come from eraly days of wikipedia, when the role of disambig pages was not very clearly understood and formulated. If you wasnt an "expandable" articles, with explanations, then traditionally the proper name would be "List of ....". mikka (t) 15:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Lowellian. Celestianpower 15:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You and xe don't get it. The etymology of the name belongs in a dictionary, i.e. in Wiktionary in the Wiktionary appendix on first names. Disambiguation pages are for articles which would otherwise share a title. Every single one of those articles that Lowellian thinks are equivalents are in fact not, and do not set a precedent for what xe has done here at all. They are name disambiguations for encyclopaedia articles for people, places, and things known solely by that name (although Alice, Alicia, and Michael are in need of some serious trimming because they also "disambiguate" between things that aren't actually ambiguous in the first place) and that would be at that title were it not for one another. (Michael has a whole list of kings and emperors known solely by that given name, for example.) There are no people, places, or things commonly known as Alessandra here. Lowellian's name disambiguation is empty. Uncle G 17:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Celestianpower. SchmuckyTheCat 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful, likely search term. Kappa 20:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For what, exactly? Searching for "Alessandra" brings up the other articles with other titles. What article do we have that goes by the title "Alessandra"? From Wikipedia:disambiguation:

    Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion.[...]Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion.

  • The only two entries on this page are Alessandra Ambrosio and Alessandra Mussolini. There is no risk of confusion between those two, and neither are commonly known simply as "Alessandra". There is nothing to disambiguate here. Uncle G 23:24, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
    • This situation is similar to that of a redirect. From Wikipedia:Redirect:

      Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

    • You might not find the looking up Alessandra useful, but you do not know others' browsing habits, and I and at least some other people who have voted here do find it useful. Now, Alessandra could redirect straight to an article, but there are multiple famous people named Alessandra. That is why it has to be a disambiguation page, and that is why it has to be kept. —Lowellian (talk) 01:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I entirely agree with Uncle G, and the distinction between Wikipedia and Wiktionary is well-established. Radiant_* 14:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Lowellian has now removed the relevant guideline from Wikipedia:Disambiguation and started a discussion about this principle on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in an imperative way with these contents. If a person is known only as Alessandra (and, I'd say, its variants), then that person should be disambiguated. However, "people who have this first name" is utterly absurd. First name dabs are not "List of" articles in disguise, and one of the few things I would edit war over is precisely that. It's one thing to have Elvis disambiguate Elvis Presley and Elvis of Montfort or Elvis of Hippo, because he is known by that name exclusively (Madonna is the better example, of course), but it's quite another to have "yuk yuk all the people named Bob" clobbering the valid disambig of an article. Geogre 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So who decides? This is a dab page specifically because two people were edit warring over a redirect. Obviously SOME people thought these people were notable first name users, but because you don't you want to delete? SchmuckyTheCat 04:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The examples Lowellian made makes my point. Disambigs for names are not used for people's first names unless they have no given or widely known last name. They are, however, used for places, things, etc. -R. fiend 18:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As explained very well by others, first names are generally not suitable for disambigs. Quale 16:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This issue has been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, and trying to spread it here is an abuse of the VfD process and a violation of WP:POINT. Also, I really think it's okay to have a disambiguation page for first names as long as the name is relatively uncommon. It's a useful navigation aid here. Deco 00:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per my POV on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. While I see both sides, I don't see any real harm in it. violet/riga (t) 00:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ambi 00:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki to wiktionary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheche[edit]

Transwiki to wiktionary. dictdef. Wikibofh 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 04:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Androminetophilia[edit]

del. neologism. google gives no serious references. mikka (t) 23:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this appears to be a legitamite paraphilia. I looked very quickly and found this serious reference: [13]. Most of the listings in the paraphilias article have links to other articles. So this doesn't seem to be any different. -- Samuel Wantman 06:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to be legit. -- AlexR 11:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This is a legitimate psychology topic. JamesBurns 10:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As above. Exploding Boy 22:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've got to the root of the problem. The correct name is "Andromimetophilia", so the name makes sense and searchable, too. Unfortunately I am not into a kinky sex, so I did not recognize the word quickly. Withdrawing the objection and moving the page to the correct title. mikka (t) 00:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sofia Rivera[edit]

Vanity by a 12-year-old. RickK 23:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per RickK. I swear I saw this a few weeks back... Kel-nage 23:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That would indicate that we haven't communicated effectively why this needs to be deleted. Perhaps a revision of the VfD template could help? --Unfocused 23:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nominator. Google "sofia rivera"+guitar only gets a Hilary Duff fansite, and this person's home page hosted on what appears to be a Halie Duff fansite. --Unfocused 23:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• She is an "unsigned artist", and there is no other evidence that she is successful enough to pass WP:MUSIC, so we have to delete this article, although I wish her every success in future. Kappa 23:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 23:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. CDC (talk) 21:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infamous Hacks[edit]

"Infamous" is inherently POV; unnecessary with Timeline of hacker history already extant. tregoweth 23:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Timeline of hacker history. Redundant. --khaosworks 23:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Timeline of hacker history. carmeld1 23:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. This is likely another part of the User:Group6 university project. --Joy [shallot] 17:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Sharpe[edit]

Jonathan Sharpe gets no google hits related to this article. The article states that Sharpe is "cited" in a book by Margaret Cruikshank, entitled The Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement. Margaret is real and so is the book, but the full text search engine provided by amazon.com turns up no references to Sharpe in the work.

Also, a thorough search of edit histories leads me to believe that the author of this article, El beatle (talk · contribs), is the same person who created the hoax article Charles Mason (Revolutionary), currently on VfD. The evidence lies in the contributions of an anon 137.205.28.226 (talk · contribs), who both edited the Mason article and who added this to the Felching article, "Famous Felchers include Jonathan Sharpe." func(talk) 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Well spotted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yeah, smells like a hoax. --Etacar11 23:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This person is fictional. Anon 04:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Wayne Selznick[edit]

Non-notable. Was marked as a copyvio but linked site was a Wikipedia mirror. Created by a user who's name seems to suggest a vanity page Kiand 23:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

HYP (universities) (see also College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States and Harvard-Yale-Princeton)[edit]

User:Vciousangel placed a VFD tag on top of this page on June 1; however, this user failed to list the page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 1 and also linked to the old VFD debate six months ago at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities). I am listing this article on VFD on behalf of User:Vciousangel even though I personally believe this article should not be deleted. Warning to anonymous users: Your votes are not counted on VFD. —Lowellian (talk) 23:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:Uncle G moved this page from HYP (universities) to College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States after the VFD was under way. I have moved it back. Let the VFD vote finish first before moving the article. Additional note: Uncle G might want to seek concensus to move the article before moving it. —Lowellian (talk) 01:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Uncle G has now moved this page again from HYP (universities) to College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States and also split it up that article and to Harvard-Yale-Princeton. Also, Uncle G deleted my comment [14], which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy against erasing other people's comments. —Lowellian (talk) 01:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G deleted more of my comments, again violating Wikipedia policy [15]. —Lowellian (talk) 01:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Page history is working oddly due to the frequent page moves and server lag. —Lowellian (talk) 01:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask another admin to protect the page to its location when this VFD started on HYP (universities)? Most of the votes thus far on this VFD page were for that page, not the rewritten and different and split-off pages College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States and Harvard-Yale-Princeton. If Uncle G wants to write those articles, he should do so when this VFD is over. Also, Uncle G's deletions of my comments are very inappropriate. —Lowellian (talk) 02:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G did not delete any of my comments. They were moved below, so I missed them. My apologies to him for accusing him of deleting my comments when he did not. I have stricken out my wrong accusations above. —Lowellian (talk) 03:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. First, the term is formally used in the names of sports meets held by the three schools. Second, it is widely informally used in the academic and student world, especially in the United States, but it is not even limited to the United States, as for example these articles from the South Korean Korea Times [16] and the British New Stateman [17] attests. Third, consider these Google results which demonstrate how much more common this term is as opposed to other variations (which have recently been making the rounds on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPS, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSM, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSMC):

  • "hyp AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton)" - 31200
  • "yhp AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton)" - 1410
  • "hyps AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton OR stanford)" - 978
  • "hpy AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton)" - 653
  • "hpysm AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton OR stanford OR mit)" - 8

  —Lowellian (talk) 23:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • The problems with those latter searches are (a) that they presume that HYPS is always going to be expanded to include one of the actual names (which it isn't — When researching the initialism for Wiktionary I found instances where it was used without expansion, with the apparent presumption that readers would know what the letters stood for without having to be explicit.) and (b) that the initialism under consideration is actually HYPSM not HPYSM. ☺ Uncle G 03:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

  Regarding your point (b):

  • "hypsm AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton OR stanford OR mit)" - 225

  —Lowellian (talk) 12:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, keep. Bbpen 01:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: with a change in title, the article is no longer claiming priority over the letters. Although I still think there is a limited amount to say about the acronymn qua acronymn and that the thing could be done with a simple link page, my own objections from before have been answered amply, and I am happy to change my vote. Geogre 23:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep Some unfamiliar with this term may raise POV issues, but there is no doubt these are the three most prestigious universities in the country. The law of of the land (the US News rankings) has ranked these schools in the top three in almost every year of the ranking's existence. Some would argue this term still favors Harvard. But outside of partisan school spirit bickering there is no question which school is the nation's preeminent. lots of issues | leave me a message 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and notable. Has this term been included in the articles for the three universities? Harro5 00:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lowellian knows the exacting and proper use of Google. :) This article is well written, verifiable, and NPOV. func(talk) 00:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. See above. Uncle G 03:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • Sigh...so now I'm just confused by this whole issue. No vote. func(talk) 01:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I still vote delete. From the second article "I had no idea what it stood for, and I am an alum of the H part of this acronym." I just don't think it's notable. Worthwhile in the wiktionary? Perhaps. Wikipedia? No. Wikibofh 00:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I fixed the format--VfD isn't a place for straw polls. See this for an explanation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but look for a more proper name. Indeed, the most real usage is for namins sports events. General-purpose naming for "Big Three universities" is not so wellestablished. mikka (t) 01:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, well-sourced, NPOV, and in common use. Maybe move to Harvard-Yale-Princeton or a similar title. --Carnildo 01:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it would be a good idea to make two articles: Harvard-Yale-Princeton for universities and NYP (sports event). mikka (t) 01:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• NEW INFORMATION: Strong delete -- this Google-based analysis is completely fallacious. "Hyp" is a common prefix and abbreviation which appears in thousands of documents. While "HYP AND (Harvard OR Yale OR Princeton)" has 32000 results, "PHY AND (Princeton OR Harvard OR Yale)" has 673000 results, and "HSM AND (Harvard OR Stanford OR MIT)" has 474000 results! Are Harvard, Princeton, and Yale often referred to together? Sure. Is HYP a term that anyone recognizes out of context? No way. It's an interesting acronym for a dictionary site, completely unsuitable for a Wikipedia entry. That's why this was deleted before. -- Fenster 01:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was only undeleted for the history. This should be kept for GFDL purposes unless the derived article has been deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I mentioned before on Talk:HYP (universities), "PHY AND (Princeton OR Harvard OR Yale)" only returns as many results as it does because PHY is an abbreviation for "physics" that is often used in course catalog names. As for "HSM AND (Harvard OR Stanford OR MIT)", the problem is that the search is skewed by German language results ("mit" in the German language means "with"). If you restrict to English-language sites, then "HSM AND (Harvard OR Stanford OR MIT)" returns 27,300 results (a mere 6% of the 474,000 in all languages), while "HYP AND (Harvard OR Princeton OR Yale)" still returns 30,100 results (as compared to 32,800 in all languages). —Lowellian (talk) 12:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, and as I mentioned just above, the reason that HYP returns results is because Hyp is a common prefix and abbreviation in the English language. If it's a single word or abbreviation, and it's not even recognized by the dictionary, then it's not enough of a real term to warrant an encyclopedic entry. Fenster 08:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It does indeed seem to be a term in actual use, and not a fluke, an in-joke, etc. But that's all it seems to be -- a term. I agree with the reasoning of Wikibofh and Fenster: delete. -- Hoary 03:00, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep, this one I'd keep as opposed to others that have been previously debated. HYP is a subset of the ivy league that is a commonly used term, especially among sports within the three. Harvard, Yale or Princeton couldn't don't care at all whether they are number one in the ivy league--they just want to beat each other. (Although, Yale couldn't give a shit about Princeton.) Take a look at the Yale athletics site: "HYP champions," it will say (some years). CoolGuy 03:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• At Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPS and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSMC I initially agreed with Func on a redirect to Ivy League. I've changed my mind. Both of those articles (and also HYPSM and hyps) should redirect to this article, wherever it ends up. Geogre makes a good point that this article isn't really about the initialism. Wiktionary can (and now does) handle the initialisms. This article is about the facts that a small group of universities is generally regarded as being distinguished from all of the rest and that that group is considered as a unit. (These facts are hardly unique to the United States, either. They are true for several countries.) The problem, as mikkalai says here and as Dpbsmith says in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYPSMC when talking about having articles for all of the combinations of letters, is the name of this article. hyps, HYPS, HYPSM, HYPSMC, and this article are all basically POV forks of a single article dealing with the single concept of a small group of institutions. When it comes to admissions, people don't agree which universities are generally regarded to be in the group, and in what order to rank them within the group. There's a perfectly fine encyclopaedia article to be had here, about these very things. As per the NPOV, Wikipedia should stay out of the argument, though. All of these articles should be redirects to a single article with a neutral title, which I suggest this one be Renamed to. Unfortunately, I suspect that the name is going to be cumbersome, and nothing springs to mind that isn't problematic. Harvard-Yale-Princeton has the same problem as the other titles of being too definite and too ordered. Big Three universities is out because (as shown by this rash of little articles, and by real-world usage) people don't even agree that there are solely three universities in the group. Something like Highest ranked universities in the United States probably encompasses too broad a scope. Elite universities in the United States is just as controversial a title as these initialisms are. A merger into Ivy League ignores the fact that this isn't quite the same thing; some people including at least two non-Ivy institutions in the group, and equally excluding some of the Ivy institutions. College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States might work, although that would involve factoring out the three-letter athletic meets into a separate article (for which Harvard-Yale-Princeton is a good candidate) and disambiguating more finely between the meets and the admissions shorthands at HYP. Uncle G 03:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uncle, you agree with Geogre, but while Geogre votes keep, he/she adds "there is a limited amount to say about the [acronym] qua [acronym]". Meanwhile, all I've learnt is that the term bunches together three universities for somewhat self-congratulatory, PR purposes: if they're "selective", this must be qualified by consideration of "legacy" dullards, etc. As you've pointed out, there are plenty of these acronyms; I say, let those people who are interested google for them, and let the snobs and PR industry produce pages for them. -- Hoary 07:07, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
    • Clarification: I take it as our mission to NPOV to ask only that it be verifiably in use and potentially needed to answer a researcher's question, so I voted keep. The reason is that I think that HYP ain't no great thing, myself (how hard is it to turn out great scholars when you only accept people who need no teaching in the first place?), but the effective use of this hype is sufficient to have a smallish article that answers the need of potential researchers. If the article is safely away from other "hyp" lemmae, I can't object or see that it violates deletion policy. So, even though I don't think it's a good idea, I have to presumptively keep. (Besides, Cornell is kicking their rears in most fields, and Stanford and CalTech do, too, and the old sisters of the south are nipping at their heels.) Geogre 14:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I've expanded the discussion of admissions shorthands to include all of the initialisms and renamed the article to College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States, the best name that I could come up with (better names are welcome). I've also separated out the Harvard-Yale-Princeton athletic league into Harvard-Yale-Princeton (which was a redirect with no significant prioer history and so wasn't a merger). Please re-read the articles now. Do you now learn more than you did? Uncle G 01:37, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Comment looks rather like [18] with some typos and changes to pass a copyvio test. Since the term appears to be real, it may in fact belong. I'm just not sure that this is the correct article text. Vegaswikian 04:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That site is a non-GFDL-compliant Wikipedia mirror. We've been down this road before. See Talk:HYP (universities). Uncle G 06:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep - Ive heard this term quite a lot, quite notable and should be kept -CunningLinguist 08:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: common abbreviation for a collection of famous universities. Capitalistroadster
  • At 21:20, 2005 Jun 8, 64.12.116.69 altered Capitalistroadster's vote from "Keep: Common abbreviation..." to "Delete: ? abbreviation" Here is the diff. I'm changing it back now. It's alarming to realize that this went undetected for over a week. -- Hoary 13:38, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a real abbreviation that has been in common use for at least half a century. I hate academic boosterism and I hate the tendency of our university articles to accumulate fat paragraphs that shove cardinal-and-gray or big green peacock-feather-butts in the reader's face. The present article on HYP isn't very good. Nevertheless, it is quite conceivable that someone might encountered the abbreviation somewhere and look it up for an explanation. Furthermore, a factual, neutral description of academic prestige in the United States--as opposed to assertions that "my own school has it"--would be in order somewhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though I voted to delete last time around, and still don't believe the term to be very common or more than borderline notable, I take the repeated re-creation of the article as evidence that there's a need for it to exist in some form. (In brief, I agree with Geogre and Dpbsmith.) -- Rbellin|Talk 16:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 19:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• User:Uncle G moved this page from HYP (universities) to College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States after the VFD was under way. I have moved it back. Let the VFD vote finish first before moving the article. Additional note: Uncle G might want to seek concensus to move the article before moving it. —Lowellian (talk) 01:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • And I moved the VFD page to match, too, to ensure that the link wasn't broken. As for consensus, there are four editors above who state that a better name is called for. I've given you a better name to discuss. I've also broken out Harvard-Yale-Princeton to address Hoary's concerns. Uncle G 01:37, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• User:Uncle G has now moved this page again from HYP (universities) to College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States and also split it up that article and to Harvard-Yale-Princeton. Also, Uncle G deleted my comment [19], which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy against erasing other people's comments. —Lowellian (talk) 01:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • False. I refactored it into chronological order, just as I have done this one. Read the diff that you linked to more closely. Please add your comments to the bottom of the discussion. Uncle G 01:51, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Uncle G deleted more of my comments, again violating Wikipedia policy [20]. —Lowellian (talk) 01:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh do please learn to read Lowellian. Start with properly reading the diff that you yourself pointed to, as I've already pointed out once. The only person around here deleting comments is, ironically, you. You deleted one of mine. More ironically, it was the very one telling you that no comments had been deleted, merely moved into chronological order, and that you simply hadn't read the diff properly. To make a point, I've left your duplicated comments in, this time around. Uncle G 02:18, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Uncle G did not delete any of my comments. They were moved below, so I missed them. My apologies to him for accusing him of deleting my comments when he did not. I have stricken out my wrong accusations above. —Lowellian (talk) 03:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • No worries. I in turn take back my exasperated comment above. Anyway, back to the discussion at hand. ☺ I've dinged some talk pages. Uncle G 04:47, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Merge College admissions and ranking shorthands to HYP and clean-up I think we should cover the considerable distance HYP has in money, alumni, etc. compared to all other schools...although it's unclear to me whether this is a minor social thing of people associated with top schools or an actual issue (ie I don't have sources). DirectorStratton 02:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• By the way, Lowellian is a Harvard student. CoolGuy 03:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I wonder what house he resides in? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• comment Let's not forget about AWS - Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore - the top LACs lots of issues | leave me a message 05:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Sigh! Can we please try to discourage the use of acronyms altogether? To me, AWS stands for "Automatic Warning System", used to advise British train drivers of what the next signal is showing. And what the hell is a LAC? -- Arwel 11:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A Little Arrogant College. But what's with AWS? Everyone knows Haverford is the best. Heck, its name even sounds like "Harvard," what more proof do you need? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this one (College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States) and redirect the other variations to here. As other variations come up for VfD merge and redirect to here. Then, take this subject out into the woods and shoot it.  :) Wikibofh 15:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this political propaganda page. It is mainly used by Princeton and Yale people to forever tie their schools to Harvard. In reality, there is no HYP league, only the Ivy League, and barely, Ivy Plus. Furthermore, the votes for Keep are heavily biased and self-selected since random people are unlikely to have heard of this phrase, but among H Y or P graduates, even if the phrase is unfamiliar, they have an incentive to try to popularize it and "shrink" the Ivy League. As to previous historical agreements, so what? There have been lots of athletic or two way sports agreements that ebb and flow - this page is NOT about sports, but instead is simple academic boosterism. DELETE! - Anon 4582.
• Keep User:141.157.157.100 4:28, June 6th, 2005 (EDT) (vote erased by 64.12.116.69, and replaced with the following; restored by Uncle G 13:57, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC))
• Delete What the???
• Delete Put it in the wikitionary. -Phantym 06:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree put it in the dictionary. Ken. .....unsigned would-be vote made at 19:11, 2005 Jun 15 by 205.188.117.65
• Keep. Definition is far too long for dictionary entry. Uris 19:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ....unsigned would-be vote made at 11:16, 2005 Jun 17 by 82.127.193.210
• Delete

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-aging skincare[edit]

• Delete possible copyvio. Revolución 00:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It says "This FAQ may be reproduced if it is referenced as the Anti-Aging Skincare FAQ, version 4.1, posted to alt.skincare.", but that doesn't seem to fall under the GFDL. Kappa 02:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An external link on some page would seem to serve the purpose of making the information available. If you wikify the faq, then what happens when it changes? It will need major work to keep it updated. I likely will not pass the NPOV test. Vegaswikian 04:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. this is not an articleits a FAQ, if someone can rewrite it and make it into an article then they should if not delete this article.--GregLoutsenko 23:54, 8 Jun 2005
• Delete This is just a standard USENET newsgroup FAQ. Should we allow the FAQs from all newsgroups to be dumped into Wikipedia?

(UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 21:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Barrio gangs[edit]

• Delete POV Revolución 00:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. POV is not a reason to delete an article on a legit topic; it's a reason to fix it. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• This version as it stands is non-encyclopedic. I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but I'd suggest that we merge what's relevant into Barrio. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I really wanted to say keep until I read The author would like to take a moment to note that this is an online article, and if you're receiving it as a student's paper, it is probably plaguerized via copy-paste. Please give your student an F. Delete Vegaswikian 05:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. I put the clean-up and wikify tags because I thought the topic might be encyclopaedic if correctly developed. As it is now, the article amounts to POV and original research. If no one is willing to work on it, consider this vote a delete. Sarg 08:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, and possible copy-paste copyvio. (I can't find the online source, however.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is completely an original research article, not to mention it is rather unencyclopedic. Any info that may have been contained in here that is keepable (that is ASSUMING it isnt a Copyright Violation) should be merged into the correct article on Street Gangs. -CunningLinguist 00:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup - Barrios gangs are a large phenomenon, this article deserves more quality.
• Delete POV, original research --Smooth Henry 04:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

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