Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 27

April 27

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Isaiah 45

Just a copy of the text of Isaiah chapter 45, no commentary at all. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no need for transwiki. This appears to be a direct copy of Wikisource's KJV Isaiah chapter 45. android↔talk 00:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this article has no commentary and thus can be distinguished from articles on verses from the bible. Such articles were discussed in February during the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16 debate.--AYArktos 01:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A scan of other Christian Bible topics shows that the articles are analytical rather than simple quoted text. In this respect, deletion is consistent with the current structure. Many Bible related pages provide external links to verbatim chapter and verse text, which is useful to readers. That was missing on the main Isaiah page but I've fixed that.Tobycat 01:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • analysis not on Isaiah page but at Book of Isaiah--AYArktos 02:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A User has been posting these Bible passages, which I've been speedy deleting. They're not even appropriate for Wikisource or Wikibooks. Delete. RickK 05:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks has a bookshelf of Annotated works, such as Wikibooks:The Annotated Constitution of the United States, and Wikisource has various Bible translations at Wikisource:Religious texts#Bible. Uncle G 13:06, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
    • But this isn't annotated. RickK 22:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary duplication. Megan1967 06:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an exact copy of a bible verse isn't an article, nor a list or a category and therefore, not encyclopedic. Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• The article even has a Wikisource link, although it points to the wrong place. (I suspect that the tag applier meant {{move to Wikisource}}, but that is, as pointed out above, unnecessary.) As the Wikisource article points out, there are copyright restrictions on the King James translation of the Bible. Delete. Uncle G 13:06, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary duplication. The analysis should be included in the Book of Isaiah. --Eleassar777 19:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• God did not create light, for He is light. It was the primeval darkness which He created in order to have a division between day and night. 'Evil,' as used here, refers to evil of a physical nature (storms), not moral evil. Do you get what I'm saying? Oh well, never mind. Delete ---Isaac R 22:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No commentary at all.--Prem 05:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone needing this can go to GospelCom.net and get it in any number of different versions. Peter Ellis 14:59, 2 May 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 Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"fansy the famous bard"

Unencyclopedic videogame trivia. CDC (talk) 00:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all player characters from MMORPGs, CRPGs, and pen-and-paper RPG campaigns. android↔talk 00:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Dsmdgold 00:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all player characters from MMORPGs, CRPGs, and pen-and-paper RPG campaigns. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jinx! android↔talk 01:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Randolph 01:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. bardcruft. -- 8^D ^gab 01:52, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete all player characters from MMORPGs. They're simply not encyclopedic. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm of two minds on this one. Fansy is all but an EQ community celebrity; this isn't vanity, it's a community joke and famous troll. (The ugly Geocities-ness of the fansy page doesn't help, but it's part of the joke.) Then again, it is just an EQ thing. Maybe there's somewhere this could be merged? A Man In Black 12:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What part of all player characters is ambiguous or controversial? Ben-w
  • Fansy is arguably notable as an EQ joke, not as an EQ user. A Man In Black 06:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even meet the standards of fancruft. Even fans wouldn't be interested in this. Sjakkalle 09:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Bah. Delete. This is better suited to a theoretical Sullon Zek or Zek article. A Man In Black 05:06, 1 May 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Clock of birds

Google's only heard of it in one place: a book called A sideways look at time, and then only in passing in a negitive review. BTW, search was "clock of birds" Kalui, and it thinks Kalui is a spelling error. I don't think this is documented. humblefool® 00:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- unless proven te be unverifiable. It's obscure, interesting trivia that make places like WP worth the visit. - Longhair | Talk 05:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you have it exactly backward. The rule has to be delete unless verified. Rossami (talk) 17:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep trusting longhair Yuckfoo 16:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The fact that the Kalui use birds to tell time is interesting and encyclopedic, but it should be noted in an article about the Kalui, not in it's own article. Also, the phrase "clock of birds" is probably just one persons figurative description, not a common expression. —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 05:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. unverifiable. Megan1967 06:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete XmarkX 06:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete found another reference to it, though also from the author of the book mentioned above. If anything, should get a brief mention in a Kalui article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Abortion bucket

Historical content is offensive vanity page

• Delete Band vanity/advert. Dsmdgold 01:01, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bucketcruft. -- 8^D ^gab 01:37, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete!. It's nothing at all.Tobycat 01:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. (BTW, it's offensive isn't a reason to delete.) android↔talk 02:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Offensive vanity page with no value of any kind. Tannin 05:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Toilet humour disguised as art, at it's worst. - Longhair | Talk 06:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. band-based vanity --Vamp:Willow 12:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no hits for their supposed record label. Would reconsider if verified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think the band even exists Lurker 16:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity article. Plus: this sort of thing isn't really according to punk ideology. Zoso 01:07, 3 May 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Seneca the Great

Aye right .... nonsense--Doc Glasgow 01:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Utter nonsense. Tobycat 02:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Campbell Soup (disambiguation)

patent nonsense

• delete - I couldn't find any serious reference to a bus driver named "Campbell Soup" and "Chicken Noodle". Samw 01:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No info available on supposed bus driver. Even if true, not notable.Tobycat 02:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to actually exist.-LtNOWIS 03:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 06:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Kill disambiguation and redirect Campbell Soup to Campbell Soup Company to avoid recreation of nonsense. Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if true, a bus driver with a slightly silly name isn't encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --BD ^thimk 02:08, 2005 May 2 (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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

SSNRI

I believe SNRI, rather than SSNRI, is the correct term

• Delete. It's an SNRI. Verified by the website of the manufacturer of Effexor: "Because EFFEXOR XR works on these two chemicals, it is known as an SNRI, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor."Tobycat 02:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to SNRI. Meelar (talk) 03:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to SNRI. Megan1967 06:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Upon further examination I say Redirect to Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor not SNRI —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 11:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this is not the place to argue for that motion. And note that the page title will have the correct spellgni. Radiant_* 09:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) no longer relevant. Radiant_* 11:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this describes Selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor type anti-depressants I.e ( Venlafaxine et al). I've seen SSNRI used in research contexts. SNRI refers to drugs like Strattera (atomoxetine) that only inhibit norepinephrine reuptake. This is an important difference,they are not the same. Current research suggests that SNRI's lack much of the antidepressant activities of SSNRI drugs. Klonimus 07:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You're confusing selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. They share the same acronym, but from what I understand, SNRI is only commonly used to describe the latter, mostly because there are so few examples of the former. Unfortunately, a few have used it to describe drugs like Strattera, creating understandable confusion. It might be a good idea for someone to verify this, though.
    • Let me explain how this whole thing works, and maybe somone can do a web of redirects and disambigs. The key thing is that all these drugs are selective reuptake inhibitors compared to TCA antidepressants/typical antipsychotics which are not selective and have lots of side effects. Klonimus 02:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SSRI Inhibits serotonin, anti-depressant. Zoloft, Prozac

SNRI Inhibits norepinephrine only, anti-ADHD. Before the marketing of Strattera, which is an SNRI, people used the term to refer to SSNRI drugs like Effexor that affect both serotonin and norepinephrine. This is wrong, and today that usage is deprecated. Right now, Strattera is the only SNRI on the market.

SSNRI refers to drugs like affect both serotonin and norepinephrine, anti depressant. Right now, Effexor and Cymbalta are the only SSNRI on the market in the US. Both are rather expensive, and not shown to be more effective than Zoloft which is going to off patent in 2006

Also serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor should be moved to Selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, since the selectivity is the major point. Selective_noradrenaline_reuptake_inhibitor needs to be merged with Selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor.

I've done a quick review of the literature, and the result is undecided.

1. SNRI is used to refer to both selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, the latter somewhat more than the former.

2. SSNRI always refers to selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors

One of the problems is that SSNRI is not a terribly accurate term. Venlafaxine, for instance, is not selective; it also works on dopamine as well. I therefore think we should disambig SNRI, and redirect SSNRI to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor.

• Merge with SNRI. Klonimus's info is useful but since they are related and people are likely to confuse the two, they should be addressed in the same article. Radiant_* 09:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Klonimus's distinctions.Capitalistroadster 00:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep not really in favor of a merge Yuckfoo 16:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and thank Klonimus for the research. Kappa 00:16, 1 May 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Anna Maria Pertl Mozart

Just because she is the mother of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart does not necessarily make her notable enough to have her own article. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wolfgang Amadeus MozartTobycat 02:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect —Wahoofive (Talk) 03:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, it can be broken out if useful info ever turns up. Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect agree with MGM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The page's title does not conform with naming conventions for married women in German-speaking countries, but follows American practice. Martg76 19:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't delete a misnamed article, you rename it. ---Isaac R 00:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Only if the person is notable on her own, which I think she is not. I voted delete because the wrong title makes the riderect proposed by the voters above superfluous. Martg76 08:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. But it's reasonable for people to assume that the first thing you say after you vote is your rationale for that vote. You might want to indicate more clearly when your commenting on other people's votes. ---Isaac R
        • That was obvious at the time of voting (when there were only redirect votes) and is obvious even now because of the order of votes. Martg76 21:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to the right title. She is an important historical figure as she heavily influenced W.A.Mozart and we cannot understand him and his work without knowing her. Much information about her can be found online (use Google). --Eleassar777 19:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable mother. Klonimus 21:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Klonimus voted "keep". Further, the article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 22:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we please keep personal quarrels out of the VfD discussions? ---Isaac R 23:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • WTF? Klonimus 05:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Carnildo - factionalizing isn't helpful. Please don't. Radiant_* 08:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being related to two famous people ain't much, but it's all Chelsea Clinton has. not to mention the Bush twins. I won't say that Anna is more notable than a minor Canadian politician, but she's in the same league! ¶ In any case, it's absurd to talk about a redirect. Anna Maria Perti Mozart is not another name for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. ---Isaac R 23:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - do not redirect to her son's page (but rename if deemed appropriate - it certainly would not have been the name she was ever known by). There are plenty less notable and less interesting people who have biographies on Wikipedia. I concur with Eleassar777's comments above that she is important for the influence she would have had on an extremely notable composer. --AYArktos 23:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She had some influence on his career travelling with him and verifiable data exists about her. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mozart. Radiant_* 08:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. notable. N-Man^talk 11:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Her influence can be placed with the Mozart article.
• keep' please Yuckfoo 16:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Not independently notable. Any influence on Mozart should be discussed in context. Rossami (talk) 18:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in the article indicates notability. Having a famous offspring does not make one notable. By that logic, we should have articles on all four of Mozart's grandparents, because clearly they are parents of the notable mother of Mozart. Mozart's great grandparents would then also need inclusion, ad nauseum. Quale 01:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Of course she is notable. Paul August ☎ 13:40, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We can't have articles on every single relative of a famous person. Gamaliel 04:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notrable. The bio link could be added to Mozart's article. Pavel Vozenilek 12:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can actually find something that makes her (rather than her offspring) notable. XmarkX 20:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She influenced Wolfgang Mozart greatly, and she has an article in the Mozart Project -- Tony Jin | (talk) 05:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! It's all been said, she was a very important person in the life of one of the most famouse people ever. I think that's enough for her to deserve an article.--Sterio 12:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect--Prem 05:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Eleassar777 and others. Kappa 19:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Anna Maria Pertl Mozart passes the pokemon test. Klonimus 01:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• The test is available here. --Eleassar777 07:21, 3 May 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

Llaneros

Hispanic dicdef. LevelCheck 01:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is a valid definition that is correct. (comment added by User:Norskerik. In the future, you can sign your posts by adding ~~~~.)
• Keep and cleanup--seems like we could have a good article on these, but this isn't it--see Wikipedia:The perfect stub article for instructions, if you're new. Meelar (talk) 03:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, like we have gaucho. But so far the llanos artciel spells it all now. Mikkalai 23:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Could be a useful article. RickK 05:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently Llaneros are Venezuelan cowboysgauchos. So why shouldn't we merge/redir to CowboyGaucho? Radiant_* 10:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • No. They are Venezuelan gauchos. Mikkalai 23:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because most non-Venezuelan cowboys didn't take part in a rebellion between 1811 and 1814. Kappa 21:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to Llanos until someone writes something even remotely similar to "gaucho" instead of this tidbit, irrelevant to the definition of the term: they would have rebelled even if they were called "porquenos." Mikkalai 23:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I will rewrite this myself by the end of the weekend. Significant group in Venezuela and Colombia with 500 years of history. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have expanded the Llanero article. I now vote that we Redirect to that article. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Llanero expand that instead. Kappa 01:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Llanero, of course! silly me. Mikkalai 16:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 16:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Llanero. BlankVerse ∅ 01:49, 1 May 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Keron - Goth Kid

The suppossed reality show the character is on can't be found on Google.

Lotsofissues 02:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an unknowing participant in a reality show? Sounds like somebody's seen The Truman Show once too often. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete can someone unknowingly write a vanity page? -Rholton 13:09, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unheard of.--Prem 06:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to war Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Armed conflicts

This is a page that tries to list all armed conflicts in the world in an "A vs. B, (1990)" format. I think it's supposed to list only ongoing conflicts. The listings of A and B can be interesting at times: "Somalia vs. Rival Clans (1991)", "Israel vs. Palestinan Authority; Hezbollah; Palestinan Separatists; Arab World (1948)", "USA; UK; Australlia vs. Iraq; France (2003)". (That last one was in a previous edit). I can't see this ever being a useful resource because of three reasons: 1) defining each individual conflict 2) identifying the parties for inclusion on either side 3) determining ongoing/dormant/resolved conflicts. Feco 02:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to all for doing a VfD on what should have been an easy redirect. I didn't bother to check for a properly named Armed conflict article, which probably would have clued me in to redirecting to war. Can someone fill me in on the details of archiving a VfD discussion? I want to put a link to these comments on the article's talk page. Feco 13:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Should be redirected to war, but you were right to bring it here. I agree with your points, btw. Meelar (talk) 02:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to War. Megan1967 06:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- to War. It'd make for a troublesome list that reads like a football fixture otherwise. - Longhair | Talk 06:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (formerly Keep) It is difficult to imagine how a timeline of armed conflicts would not be a useful resource since timelines of wars long have been. At least I seem to recall it coming up rather often in school. And what with war being such a blurry concept these days shoving a list of fights with weapons under War risks arguments about the inclusion of cancer and drugs and the removal of things like Korea and Vietnam. (prak 06:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  • Perhaps renaming it would be clearer. Something like Armed conflicts (list) or Armed conflicts (timeline) (prak 06:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
    • We already have many lists of wars and armed conflicts, including List of operations and projects (military and non-military), List of invasions, all of the articles at Category:List of wars, all of the articles at Category:Wars by region, and all of the articles at Category:Lists of battles. This article is a simple duplicate, and your proposed renaming, which doesn't follow the naming conventions for lists, doesn't fix that. Uncle G 13:27, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
      • I was wrong. Thank you for the correction. (prak 16:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Redirect as above. Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• armed conflict already redirects to war, and so in accord with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) it seems wise to redirect armed conflicts to war, too. Uncle G 13:27, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Should have been done automatically, w/o VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 12:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The Many Adventures of Tintin (video game)

No legitimate information is found anywhere for this game. After checking Google and most video game websites, I've found nothing credible to conlude this game exists or will exist. Not notable, I suppose. K1Bond007 02:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, not again! I thought the "Tintin Vandal" had gone away. Can this be speedy deleted and the proxy blocked? This sort of nonsense has reared its head before. - Lucky 6.9 03:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This IP was particularly active back on March 14th with two other bogus articles about a non-existent comic and television special, not to mention two reverted edits to existing articles. I've tagged the other hoaxes as speedies since I feel it's appropriate under the circumstances. This guy's been here before. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More CartoonVandalcruft. RickK 05:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable cruft. Megan1967 06:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I wouldn't mind playing this game if it were real. Too bad it's not. A Man In Black 07:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, such a video game exists and was officially published, it's in the same series as the Lucky Luke platformer. I don't recall its exact title though, but I have played it several times. Radiant_* 09:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • And for the record, Home of the Underdogs confirms the existence of such a game. Radiant_* 10:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Those games are older PC games (the newest is from 1997) with different names and published by an entirely different company (Infogrames instead of Vivendi). This is talking about an allegedly upcoming Tintin game for consoles, which is imaginary. A Man In Black 12:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Almost certainly a hoax. Neither the official Tintin site not any game sites I could find have made reference to this. There definitely have been Tintin games, but this is made up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Why not write an entry on the old PC game Radiant found to discourage recreation of the imaginary console game article? Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The real games have different titles (e.g. Tintin on the Moon) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Not this guy again... Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Mizzotigni

Just barely coherent enough to earn a vfd rather than speedy. Delete unless scientists have actually created a 4-centimeter long dog with white hair only in its eyes that is popular in southern Italy. Meelar (talk) 02:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find a single reference to this article on Google. I would suspect it is the product of someones over active imagination. --Randolph 05:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. patent nonsense. The editor's other additions are little better. Special:Contributions/200.73.181.144 - Willmcw 09:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I want one though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All of you want to delete it because you are ignorants that have never seen one of them. But here in Italy we have them in all the Trieste area, so do not be fooling around, dancing and saying that is a product of someone's over-active imagination. Everybody here knows mizzotignis, but we don't have many computers here, so they are not on the internet, unless you search on a science site. The only guy I liked is the one who wants one. You can buy one on our area, but they are not cheap.
• Speedily deleted. as created during vandalism spree of user:200.73.181.144. Mikkalai 05:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry to intrude but I suspect the name transliterates as "me-so-tiny" which sounds spoofacious.--Simon Cursitor 06:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

HYPSM

HYPSM is not notable. Since I know that someone voting will surely bring up this issue, the difference between this and HYP (universities) is that the term HYP is actually used as the name of sports meets events and can actually be found in printed text. Furthermore, 24.6.253.95 created the HYPSM article, claiming in the edit summary that "a google search on HYPSM will verify that this is a commonly used abbreviation". Well, here's a Google search for comparison:

• "hypsm AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton OR mit OR stanford)" - 179
• "hyp AND (harvard OR yale OR princeton)" - 24000 25800

Also note the mentioning (I cannot tell if these are jokes or not) of articles for HYPSMC and HYPSMCCC on Talk:HYPSM.

—Lowellian (talk) 02:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Reasons given above. —Lowellian (talk) 02:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For the same reasons as those given by Lowellian, which I first expressed ten days ago on Talk:HYPSM. —MementoVivere 03:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete - I'm part of one of HYP and I've never heard of it. CoolGuy 07:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just sad. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cornell, is much more prestegious anyways. Klonimus 21:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schmillen

Just another article about a non-notable college student. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. --Randolph 05:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same as above. -Lommer | ^talk 22:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete!!! Fie on thou, non-notable vanity-poster!!! Thou art condemned to.... Wiki-Hellllll!!!! -- BD2412 ^thimk 20:11, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • On second thought, this may be an innocent mistake. No Wiki-Hell, but behave! -- BD2412 ^thimk 20:13, 2005 May 2 (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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Striation

Unlikely to ever be more than a dictdef, and already in Wiktionary. Grutness|^hello? 02:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) See below.

• Keep. Perfectly good bodybuilding term: eminently wikifiable (there are interesting techniques to acquire/enhance striation in this field of endeavour). The techniques alone are worth an entry; if someone could find a picture of Arnie showing his striations that would be an excellent start for an entry. Robinh 12:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• comment Well I've spent my lunch break making a start. It's not much, but maybe the bodybuilding wikipedians can make the article better. Robinh 12:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless some serious updating of the Wiktionary definition is done, it provides no clue as to the usage in geology or anatomy and the medical sciences and various other sciences. Of course, the article doesn't do much better, but it is a better place to make those distinctions. The Wiktionary link which is used in many of the geology articles is pretty useless; it would be better just to put "striations (stripes)" or striped or whatever the context calls for in the text, than to link to what's in the Wiktionary now. Gene Nygaard 13:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe more as a disambig page, pretty much as Gene said above. Vsmith 13:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important concept in body building, geology, zebras etc. Kappa 21:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Seems to be an important concept in a number of fields. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Hm. It seems to have more meanings than I thought. Okay - good work. I withdraw my nom. Grutness|^hello? 07:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - not sure what to do with this one so I made it into a disambig page - SimonP 22:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Coverage

Nothing but a dictionary definition...any purpose outside wiktionary? --Jemiller226 02:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Dicdef. Transwiki if appropriate. -Rholton 13:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful technical term linked from many other pages. Potential to expand to explain factors affecting coverage, such as signal strength, geography, tall buildings, atmospheric factors etc. Kappa 00:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - useful technical dictionary definition, you mean. Transwiki if it's not been done, but there's no need for it to be here. Grutness|^hello? 06:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, dicdef. Transwiki.Ganymead 06:52, 8 May 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Anarchocrapitalism

Neologism gets no google hits. I'd say redirect, but nobody uses this and it's pejorative. Meelar (talk) 03:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 06:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. --Viriditas | Talk 07:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 15:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why are we wasting our time with this shit? Firebug 18:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anarchocruftism. -- 8^D ^gab 14:42, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and deleted this, because LevelCheck is trolling and all this is doing is creating extra work for people. The arbcom looks as though it's going to accept a case against him, so hopefully it won't go on for much longer. If anyone (other than LevelCheck) disagrees with me about this deletion, let me know and I'll undelete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • It has been reposted. We have policies for a reason, you can't just go around deleting anything you feel like. LevelCheck 01:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I put it on speedy delete, but someone else removed it. Anyway, this page was only created to harass a specific user (see page's first version); why keep it for any length of time? A2Kafir 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 13:11, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Twins ballpark

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball argument for this nomination. Also, I do know there is a West Side Stadium article but that proposed stadium is actually making American sports news headlines occasionally. This propose stadium isn't and what if the finance doesn't pass? Wikipedia has a useless article. Lastly with the day of age when stadiums and baseball fields have corporate sponsored names, this article's name is generic and probably wouldn't be the stadium's final name even if it ever comes true in 2009. --Chill Pill Bill 03:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Speculation. Even if the bill passes, that doesn't mean there will by a stadium. The new stadium in San Diego almost didn't happen, despite city support, because of lengthy litigation. RickK 05:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet), speculation. Megan1967 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Minnesota Twins. Yes, it's speculation, but there have been several failed plans, and this one has a good chance to succeed; the main article on the team could document that. There has been much controversy over the possibility of a new stadium (financing, location, etc.), and a section in that article could use the information from this article and also cover that topic. As a Twins fan, I'll perform the merge if it's warranted. android↔talk 12:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but without prejudice against re-creation when/if it is built. Rossami (talk) 18:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are an infinite number of proposals that could go into wikipedia under that theory. Quale 01:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Order of the Fly

Unencyclopedic. Delete Fifelfoo 03:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe there's an encyclopaedia article about the Order of the Fly, mentioned in Beelzebub, but this isn't it. It's not a substub for such an article, because it doesn't discuss the subject at all. It doesn't even have a main verb. Speedy delete under CSD criterion A1. Uncle G 13:38, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• I agree. This could have been 'speedy deleted. Rossami (talk) 18:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Pat Cadigan

Delete, nothing there, entry makes no sense, pointless -- Decker12

• Keep - It was vandalised. Please check the history of the page before nominating for deletion. I'm reverting back to the last legit edit. =-) The "history" tab is located on top. --Chill Pill Bill 04:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Gamaliel 05:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable writer. Megan1967 06:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep - significant lady and science fiction author. Do not be so hasty. - Skysmith 09:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination looks like an honest mistake by a newbie... Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 13:12, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of bands which prohibit recordings of their performances

No encyclopedic potential. Difficult to verify. Could be a huge list. —Wahoofive (Talk) 04:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 06:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Copyright exists. Most bands are out to protect their rights and incomes. This list (as opposed to List of bands which permit recordings of their performances) will become very long indeed. - Longhair | Talk 06:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - might as well call it "list of bands" —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 07:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• That would be nearly all bands, then. Delete this pointless list. Radiant_* 09:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: at www.archive.org there is a list of the opposite, Artists That DO Allow Live Recordings, but this is because archive.org hosts many of them. (Not sure this is relevant, but thought you might like to know.) Marblespire 09:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Most bands prohibit recordings because of copyright issues. I'd find the List of bands which permit recordings of their performances far more useful. Delete this one as not maintainable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Would have to include 99.9% of the bands in the world. An article on bands who have specifically spoken out in public against taping might be interesting, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: -- Do I sense the creation of List of bands which prohibit recordings of their performances and have spoken out in public about it? Please don't :) - Longhair | Talk 20:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This would be a pretty long list. Perhaps a more useful list would be the notable artists that do or did although the Grateful Dead and Metallica are the only notable artists that spring to mind. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary unmaintainable list. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete worthless. 68.190.40.38 02:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Leithp 08:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as pointed out, we already have the inverse list: List of bands which permit recordings of their performances. So, this list is unnecessary and redundant. It's like having a list of "People who have not walked on the moon". - Pioneer-12 10:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not only it is an unmaintainable list but also wikipedia has it's way of creating automatic lists via the category functionality.
• Delete. --minghong 18:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete. —Xezbeth 13:12, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

List of U.S. composers

too short and useless duplication of Category:American composers —Wahoofive (Talk) 04:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia's category functionality is the right way of creating lists. It has the ability of holding an article and it automatically groups and manages related articles. The "articles hold red links" argument is a non-argument. It is extremely easy to create a new article, insert a small portion of information, add it to categories and mark it as stub. By this, wikipedia is better served because:

• a stub article is created, bringing more value to wikipedia and more potential to the information holded in that subject
• The listing is automatically managed.

So, therefore, every list should be converted to a category and every relevant red link should be converted into a stub category. --Maciel 12:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists are not categories. RickK 05:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• No, lists are not categories. But sometimes they're useless duplications of categories. This is one of those times. Delete. --Angr/_comhrá 06:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - A category is a list of articles, this is a list of composers, some of which may not deserve their own article. —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 08:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm an American, I'm a composer, I'll never be good enough to deserve my own article. How come I'm not on there? =) List would be either redundant (that's listed elsewhere), unmanageable (too many!) or irrelevant (who cares?). Delete. Marblespire 09:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I do agree with Teknic in principle, but a 'list of composers' should list only famous composers, and all famous composers deserve an article. Radiant_* 09:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, list aren't categories. This list could include composers who are notable, but don't yet have an article. Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a well established precedent that lists and categories can exist side-by-side, even when their content is identical. Each has its own advantages - lists are centrally managed, allowing good control over their content, and can have extra commentary on each entry. Categories are automatically generated, which helps to track new articles, and can quickly and easily be navigated by means of the category hierarchy. Leave them both be. sjorford →•← 16:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. List <> category. --Myles Long 16:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — Page needs to include information that is not in the category. — RJH 16:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First, a list is an extremely useful way to put in redlinks to articles on composers that don't exist yet; indeed it's one of the only ways. Second, the list can contain additional information such as the composer's dates, which a category cannot. Third, it parallels many other existing lists of composers: some lists are by nationality, and some are by some other characteristic. Yes, the list is short, but it's barely begun: stubbiness should be an incentive to expansion, not deletion. Antandrus 23:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mikkalai 23:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has the potential to be useful list. If it is too short, then we should expand it. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary duplication of Category:American composers. Quale 01:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I pointedly disagree with Radiant's statement that "a 'list of composers' should list only famous composers, and all famous composers deserve an article" - there are plenty of lists in Wikipedia that mention people who don't necessarily merit an article - look at List of Pharaohs.

Disagree. First, any Pharaoh evenrually merits an article. Second, you can't compare this to the list of Pharaohs because the list of Pharaohs is well-defined and neatly organized by dates, unlike this one. Trapolator 03:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

-- BDAbramson ^thimk 02:29, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

• Keep. The list contains a brief overview (birth-death) and type (e.g. jazz). May need to expand a bit. --minghong 18:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fat_cat

Dictionary definition, unlikely to become more

• (nomination by Jemiller226)
• (this new vfd system makes it easy to forget to sign)
• Delete dicdef —Wahoofive (Talk) 05:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Fat Cat, which is (or was) a character on Australian childrens television, but is currently an article on Chip 'n Dale. - Longhair | Talk 09:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this term has substantial history behind it. The concept appears frequently in culture and commentary - there is significant potential for expansion here.
  • The above vote is by Pioneer-12, at 10:09, 2005 May 1 (sometimes I forget to sign 'em too). --BD ^thimk 02:35, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
• btw, Keep - over a million google hits, interesting history of use. --BD ^thimk 02:35, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
• I'm going to reverse course from my nomination in light of some additions and suggest now to keep but disambig with the aforementioned children's television character. I still think it needs expansion, though. --Jemiller226 06:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rich cats Klonimus 01:07, 3 May 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?) 20:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Showtunes

dicdef and a bunch of examples. —Wahoofive (Talk) 05:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the examples are not examples of showtunes, but examples of musical theatre productions that comprise showtunes. An example of a showtune would be Oh What a Beautiful Mornin', not Oklahoma!. Uncle G 13:47, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Keep, showtunes are an encyclopedic topic, potential for expansion to describe common characteristics and to mention the gay stereotype. Kappa 00:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Gay stereotype? —Wahoofive (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Try googling "gay" + "like show tunes" [1] Kappa 20:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - showtunes are a genre of music. The long list of musicals should be merged into List of musicals, though.
  • Comment it's not really a genre. They're songs which happen to appear in musicals (in fact, many showtunes were originally independent songs which were only put in musicals later). Otherwise, they're not much different from any other kind of song. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • They are a distinct category of music. Though showtunes may vary in style, they do tend to share common characteristics--they tend to be singable, and to contain content which fits (or can be fit) into the context of a larger story. Even independent songs that are later used in musicals usually have a "showtunes" appropriate quality to them. They don't just "happen" to be in musicals. They are in musicals for a reason. - Pioneer-12 01:12, 3 May 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. Postdlf 06:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Dionte Washington

"Dionte Washington" +Denver Nuggets gets no Google hits. Unverfiable information about a non-notable person. Angela. 05:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 05:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this; it's a hoax (no googles for his name and the team that supposedly drafted him). If he were real, he might deserve an article (I'm guessing; the article's pretty incoherent) . Meelar (talk) 21:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 06:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Frederic Lebow

Advert, vanity, borderline speedy. Indrian 06:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. Megan1967 07:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's a one-hit wonder AFAIK, but his screenplay for While You Were Sleeping was significant. I'll stubify. Andrewa 18:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable screenwriter. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As one-hitter, merge to While you were sleeping. Radiant_* 08:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable screenwriter, but I wouldn't mind a merge if there's not much else to add. Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep & add to One-hit wonders in the United States Yuckfoo 16:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Gaviddia

Possible hoax. Zero google hits for "Gaviddia," "Wheeler Federation of Seven," or Dummee Burd." Indrian 06:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless we find out where it comes from. Possibly, original fiction. Andrewa 07:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No joke. There is no title or author given for the supposed book/movie/comicbook/videogame/opera/othercreativework from which the information in this article supposedly originates. Even if this from a work of obscure sub-indie sci-fi (note that this is red link) it would be most appropriate to first have an article for the title of the work. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 07:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- basis: no viable links to. --Simon Cursitor 06:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicitous

transwiki wiktionary CoolGuy 06:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Don't transwiki, it's a copyvio and in some ways not up to the standard of the existing Wiktionary entry anyway. If we don't get consensus to delete here we must list as a copyvio. I see no point for the moment, I think we'll get consensus, but there's nothing stopping others if you think it's good use of your time. Andrewa 07:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright vio. Megan1967 07:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What a waste of people's time silliness like this "article" is. -- Hoary 07:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete copyright violation and re-create as a Redirect to deception to prevent future creation of dictionary articles on this adjective. Uncle G 12:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Comment: If that's what you want to do, then I think that you should vote keep and raise this as a copyvio. Delete means we don't want an article on this at all. IMO neither this proposed redirect nor the more grammatical one we could have from duplicity is useful, so no change of vote. Andrewa 17:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:GVFD#Votes. "Delete" in the context of "Delete and re-create as redirect" means that my opinion is that the closing administrator should hit that "delete" tab, but instead of doing all of the other related parts of the deletion process (deleting talk pages, deleting redirects, removing redlinks, and so forth) should instead then immediately create a redirect in place of the previous article. Given the lack of links to this article, the redirect isn't all that important. Furthermore: It would be wrong to vote keep with the rationale that something is a copyright violation. Voting keep and then listing on WP:CP would be self-contradictory, moreover, since the latter is another way of nominating an article for deletion, and one would be pressing to keep and to delete an article simultaneously. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
      • Comment: (Sigh) the problem here I think is that we are not entirely consistent with our treatment of copyvios. On the one hand we take a great deal of trouble in handling those that are listed on the copyvio page, so as to leave a clean history, while on the other there is no mechanism for removing old copyvios from histories, nor any demand for one. This is historical. I see no inconsistency in what I suggested, in that delete in the context of VfD has a different meaning to deletion on the copyvio page. But if it worries you, you'll need to find another way. Yours is as good as any I guess, IMO it complicates the procedure needlessly, but I respect your view. All the best. Andrewa 19:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 13:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

GravityFX

It has been over a month without any changes to the article past the creation. The domain name has existed for less than six months and appears to be little more than some guy's homepage.

• Delete - (prak 06:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. Ad for personal website, no evidence of notability. Andrewa 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Inch-Thick Paint

Band vanity. No recordings. Indrian 06:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- band vanity - Longhair | Talk 06:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To date, they have nothing recorded, but have written a few songs, and are spending a lot of time just jamming and gigging when they can. The prosecution rests. Andrewa 06:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of compliance with guidelines for inclusion of musical groups. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Vanity. --BD ^thimk 18:20, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus X

Nonnotable member of a web community. Indrian 06:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established. Interesting page history, though. The first two versions were redirects to Jesus Christ and then Jesus, and the second survived unchallenged for almost five months. Andrewa 06:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect again to Jesus. Since X (chi) is a symbol for Christ, it's a somewhat reasonable redirect, though probably not used much. So I wouldn't argue strongly against delete, either. Jonathunder 01:48, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like a joke. jarashi

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 13:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

MetaChimp

delete vanity - put it on your user page instead CoolGuy 06:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. User:MetaChimp has created this as an exact duplicate of his existing user page, I wonder why? Andrewa 06:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: The user page has been changed to represent its user, not his idea. I didn't think anyone would look at a new user's page, so I used it as my 'sandbox' before making my first article. It was not intended to stay that way. MetaChimp 17:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (just a comment, not another vote)

• Keep. It has been revised to better portray the philosophical meaning of the term, and make it more widely acceptable. Yes, it has been written by its subject, but "the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional". It is the concept that I wish to remain and grow on Wikipedia. If the original creator's accreditation is the problem, then perhaps we can consider another edit, rather than a deletion. Thank you for your time. --MetaChimp 06:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: So, the purpose of this page is to promote a neologism you have invented? See your talk page. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: neologism. Thank you; I learned a new word. Webster's second definition for it is "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic". Not exactly what I was going for, but I understand that it might appear that way. As any concept, yes, it began with one person. I liked the concept so much, I decided to adopt is as an online screen name. This doesn't make it exclusively about me, any more than the concept of a "coolguy" is strictly about user:CoolGuy. Though there is no current book or the topic, there very well might be in the next decade. What better place to have its public beginnings, than on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I have explained the concept to literally hundreds of people, each time a little differently. Why can there not be a single, set meaning, that anyone who is curious can look up on Wikipedia, and then contribute to? I will ask a few others to view this discussion, and hopefully express their opinion. MetaChimp 19:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Webster's second definition seems quite irrelevant to me, see neologism. See also Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, point #5 particularly, and Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded from articles, particularly the bullet point regarding neologisms. Please sign your posts. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for adding the signature to the post above. Andrewa 20:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Though there is no current book or the topic, there very well might be in the next decade. What better place to have its public beginnings, than on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. When a book comes out on it, it will get its article here. And what better place for it to have its public beginning? Well, http://www.metachimp.com/faqs/ , that's where. Oh, hello -- it's already there, where we also read "All content © 2003 MetaChimp". How does this claim square with the GFDL of Wikipedia? -- Hoary 06:30, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
        • Point Taken I am willing to accept the judgment of my peers, as dictated by the posted guidelines, and withdraw the MetaChimp submission. Should I wait for deletion, or remove it myself? Thank you to everyone who has helped me understand the inner workings of Wikipedia though this exercise. Hopefully, my future contributions will be of more use to the community. MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• (corrected)
  • Comment: Please stick to the normal VfD format, user:MetaChimp, otherwise you risk having your vote ignored. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I did look, but didn't see an expressly laid out "VfD format". I just followed the lead of the first vote. Does it need to say "kept" instead of keep? What format did I fail to follow? MetaChimp 03:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • You didn't evidently notice that every other person uses one bullet point only for their vote, and signs at the end of that? Henceforth go thou and do likewise, otherwise your vote looks unsigned. It just makes it easier for the sysop who eventually needs to take action on this. They may be doing quite a few at a session. Andrewa 09:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• remove - there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. CoolGuy 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) (just some comment, not another vote)
• Delete, vanity, already on users page. Megan1967 07:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: The user page has been changed to represent its user, not a concept. MetaChimp 17:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (just a comment, not another vote)

• Overtly promotional, not salient, no encyclopedic value, vanity. Delete. -- Hoary 07:42, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Response: "Overtly promotional". I see no URL pointing to "metachimp.com". That would be overtly promotional. As it is, it presents a concept, accredits its birth, and is ready to grow of its own merit. MetaChimp 17:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (just a comment, not another vote)
    • OK, as the article now stands: Covertly promotional, not salient, no encyclopedic value, vanity. -- Hoary 05:51, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• keep this "This doesn't make it exclusively about me, any more than the concept of a "coolguy" is strictly about user:CoolGuy." is a valid point.--Silentskream 03:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: that was Silentskream's first ever contribution to WP. I smell sockpuppetry! -- Hoary 03:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • If I were to engage in "sockpuppetry", it would be much more thuroughly done and in a way to swing the vote-count in my favor, not a single comment from a new user. To respond to the accusation, however, I only have one account, and have only used one account, ever, on Wikipedia. MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, user MetaChimp has had 1 edit, changing one word in an article, besides fighting to keep his vanity as an article. CoolGuy 04:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • see Ad hominem, a logical fallacy. MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • You have been here for two and a half months, your total contribution in that time has been to change one word, and even that change is one I have proposed to revert. For this reason, even if you had not now agreed to the deletion of the article, your vote here would not have counted for much. It's not an ad hominem fallacy, although it probably looks like one at first glance. See also your user page. Andrewa 03:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey! I don't like that ejaculation, Andrewa. I have relinquished this page, but I defend my edit. MetaChimp 19:40, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Noted. Also noted that you have still made no other contributions. Andrewa 06:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vote: Delete, unless MetaChimp can evidence other people using the term, in which case, this seems, though neologic, a viable conept qv multiverse --Simon Cursitor 06:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you for the positive reinforcement. Coolguy should take note.MetaChimp 07:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter nonsense, vanity. Quale 02:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Aodh mchugh

delete google shows one result CoolGuy 06:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this twaddle. -- Hoary 07:39, 2005 Apr 27 (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 as a copyvio. —Xezbeth 13:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nonpareil

transwiki wiktionary CoolGuy 06:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Do not transwiki... it's a copyvio from [2]
• I agree good detective work! CoolGuy 06:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

when they're nice enough to leave it in the standard dictionary.com format, it doesn't take a geenious genioious smart person. Feco 06:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Tasty candy. Klonimus 02:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Tasty candy. SchmuckyTheCat 13:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvios need to be removed from the edit history before rewriting. Mgm|^(talk) 07:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

1:26

Verbatim text of Bible verse with no commentary (other than links to other articles to imply an interpretation) -- Tetraminoe 06:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a copyvio... erm, no... because it's useless, as it merely quotes a Bible verse with no encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a copy of the Bible. — JIP | Talk 09:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bible copy. Note: I'll remove the link to List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people from the article. Doesn't belong there. Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. Also poorly titled. Eric119 18:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I expanded it a bit; please check now and re-vote. —msh210 22:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, still delete. It doesn't matter if you include Chapter 1, verse 26 from every book of the Bible, unless you are going to make informed (not original research) commentary, this is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 23:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was kidding. See my edit summary on this VFD subpage on April 27. —msh210 18:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. Distinguished from VFD debate on John 20:16 as John 20:16 and similar articles have commentary.--AYArktos 23:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete utterly useless and nonencyclopedic. --Angr/_comhrá 05:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't wikibooks have a bible? If not, why not? Radiant_* 10:56, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Wikibooks for writing open textbooks? I hope we're not writing a new Bible :) Wikisource might have one, though. -- Tetraminoe 17:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource has several Bibles. They're not all complete, though. --Angr/_comhrá 20:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Wikipedia is not the bible - Longhair | Talk 04:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonencyclopedic, doesn't even have any commentary on the text. Leithp 07:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This looks like the "hard coded" results of a search through a bible database. Individual search results should not be made into articles. Just use database software instead. - Pioneer-12 10:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Del nonencyc —msh210 18:11, 3 May 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. —Xezbeth 09:43, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Shoal

Not one dictdef, but two! And it's already in wiktionary. Grutness|^hello? 06:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 07:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Loads of pages link here. Compare the entry for herd, which has material on animal behaviour. Sure, it's not much more than a dictdef now, but I had plans for putting some stuff about fish avoiding predators, and linguistic subtleties of shoal vs school vs herd vs flock. Robinh 07:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Linguistic subtleties of words belong in Wiktionary. There's a link to the Wiktionary article here. Please follow it. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• comment I've just put a load of stuff in, so the article is something like OK now Robinh 11:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed it and cleaned up the disambiguation. I encourage you to put your text in swarm, where it belongs and where school (disambiguation) directs you to. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambiguation. If Robinh makes the mistake of creating a duplicate article, others are bound to, and this article will only get re-created if deleted. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• comment This sounds good to me. I'll get round to putting it in swarm when I get a minute. Best wishes, Robinh 14:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig/dictionary link. — RJH 16:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G/RJHall. —msh210 21:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Much better now as a dab. Well done. Grutness|^hello?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Surveillance abuse

can i have a second opinion CoolGuy 07:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, bad style and IMHO not worth rewriting. —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 07:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I agree. delete CoolGuy 07:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, provides no proof such a thing ever happened. Also, POV makes it impossible to rewrite. Delete, but keep it open for a sourced rewrite. Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems a bit racist, too. However, there was a report on the news this morning of the surveillance people at Caesar's Atlantic City being fined for ogling women with their surveillance equipment and apparently this is the second time this has happened at the same casino, so I can see something about similar things going into an article about this title, but as is, this is not the appropriate article. Delete. RickK 16:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV title. Whatever legitimate info is here should probably be merged with a more general article on surveillance. Firebug 18:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and send to Cleanup. Encyclopedic topic, but needs to be rewritten to Wikipedia standards. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Firebug -- what there is here that's useful wants to be within a lead article; what's POV wants 'out'. I query whether anyone would type the title in on a search.--Simon Cursitor 06:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Surveillance. - Pioneer-12 10:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep re-write if necessary. Comment made by SchmuckyTheCat.
• Merge into surveillance article. This news article is very close to the topic, so I believe it is real, though. [3] -Hapsiainen 14:42, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But totally re-write, or merge with surveillance. The current text is almost incoherent. I wrote the encyclopedia entry for "Surveillance Abuse" in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, David Levinson, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002. It is a legitimate entry title, but the issue is much broader than editing videotapes. However, recent court cases in several cities have shown that videos produced by police as evidence against demonstrators have been "creatively" edited; and other videos showed that the tape selections misrepresented the larger picture, resulting in dismissals of charges. I can create a decent stub with five book cites if folks decide to keep it.--Cberlet 20:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 13:19, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Red Guitars

delete vanity CoolGuy 07:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Hull doesn't have it's own article yet. Why should this one? - Longhair | Talk 10:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, though more input would have been helpful - SimonP 22:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

GeoTools

delete - advertising. and it's under development CoolGuy 07:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Not advertising according to Advertising, as it is Open Source and not a product or company. Under Development is also irrelevant as it has had multiple releases and appears to be stable - like most software. However may not be WP suitable till it is (or isn't) recognised by OGC (GeoTools is simply a member) or becomes widely used by Geographic Developers. DigitalThief 08:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Upon Reconsideration. Note Afformentioned Reasons.DigitalThief 09:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 09:40, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

James Riady

delete it's an article about the head of a company, where the company does not even have an article on Wikipedia. CoolGuy 07:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. He's a billionaire, and the Lippo Group is a major Indonesian conglomerate, with significant business ventures in China. I think he has better things to do than write entries on Wikipedia. Have you considered googling before listing an article for deletion? Average Earthman 09:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I forgot to say - in 2001, he was fined 8.6 million dollars by the US Senate for foreign campaign contributions. Average Earthman 09:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Average Earthman. We need to add the company, not delete its head. Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I think all billionaires are notable due to the extreme magnitude of their wealth and their resulting influence. Firebug 18:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's now a pretty good stub. We should probably also have an article on Lippo Group. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable, so is the company. N-Man^talk 11:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for influence in both Indonesian and US politics in the 1990s.Capitalistroadster 23:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Closure

• Seems like we have a concensus to keep based on James Riady being a billionaire and head of the Lippo Group. Klonimus 01:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Botticellis

delete - sorry, indie rock bands don't get articles. create an 'indie' website instead CoolGuy 07:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Indie rock bands do get articles; some have. This band's article fails to provide evidence that the band satisfies any of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines criteria, and its "Official Website" is in fact a domain-name seller's "this domain name is for sale" page. Delete. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Delete--no Allmusic, 338 google hits of which most are not notable, but I strongly disagree with the "indie rock = no article" statement above. Meelar (talk) 21:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 13:19, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bacopa monnieri

Doesn't explain subject in a comprehensible way. Deb 07:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, google tells me it's a herb, so I put that in the article. You might want to use a {{cleanup-context}} tag instead of Vfd for this kind of thing. Kappa 21:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 03:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just needs some expansion. --DanielCD 21:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 13:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Ums

delete vanity about a band CoolGuy 07:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:38, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Lionsword

Lionsword is the Royal Family of the micronation, Grand Duchy of Northwood.... Arguably all so-called micronations are fantasies, frauds or similar, but this one seems insignificant even by their humble standards. Google shows no obvious sign of the existence of this so-called Grand Duchy. Total number of hits for "northwood lionsword": zero. Probably somebody's little joke; delete. -- Hoary 07:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• Delete More micronation nonsense/hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, Lord, rescue us from all of this "micronations" crap. Extreme delete. RickK 23:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 03:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 22:08, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Black_Belt_Testing

This is not a page about black belt testing in general (which would be most appropriate as an addition to Black belt anyways), it is about the test for black belt at Pallen’s Marshall Arts. So, it's not notable, it's not encyclopedic and it's pov. I tried to contact the author almost a month ago, but haven't heard back. I propose the article be deleted. Bubamara 07:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure you meant martial arts. :) Merge useful stuff into black belt. Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't be so sure. "Pallen's Marshall Arts" is verbatim text pulled from the article in question (ok, I should have put it in quotes). It's been edited out since. Anyways, I defy you to find useful information to merge. Bubamara 21:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here that cant already be found in Black belt. Not notable. Megan1967 03:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Mergeinto black belt.--Prem 06:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Viagra cartoons

delete not encyclopedic CoolGuy 08:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm amazed someone actually wrote this article in the first place. Talk about having too much free time. Anyway, the article is hopelessly non-encyclopedic, describing a single one-panel cartoon as if it were an epic poem. And it also smacks of an advertisement for Viagra. Delete. The cartoon itself should be mentioned in Viagra, but all this babble about analysing its meaning has to go. — JIP | Talk 09:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not encyclopedic - Longhair | Talk 09:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If the cartoon is a copyvio this must be deleted. However the article is pretty funny, so if the copyright issue is sorted out I suggest a BJAODN. Sjakkalle 10:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Just isnt that funny enough for inclusion in BJAODN. Megan1967 03:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, silly original research. Too intentional for BJAODN. --Angr/_comhrá 05:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I found this whole article pretty dumb actually, it explains in great detail something that should be obvious at first sight. Delete, I wouldn't recommend mentioning it anywhere nor in BJAODN. Radiant_* 08:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Hard, long-lasting delete. Pointless essay. Nestea 02:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Friday night dinner

delete cannot be verified CoolGuy 08:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: see Bob Wallace. It may be impossible to verify this article but I'll make an attempt before I vote delete. --Viriditas | Talk 08:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• After a long search I found only one non-wiki reference by a French blogger (translate) who claims to have attended, but I can't find any personal info on him to assess his credibility. I hate to see this one go, because to a former psychonaut like myself this is the stuff of legend. But, even if it is true I would still Delete out of respect for the privacy of the event. —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 23:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: User:63.202.182.159, the creator of Friday night dinner and Bob Wallace has a short, but credible edit rep, and the IP is from somewhere in California. Possibly an acquaintance of the late Wallace with whom he confided in. And with that I am out of this discussion because i'm starting to sound obsessed. —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 00:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even if verifiable, there's nothing notable about a group of professors having dinner on friday to discuss stuff. Radiant_* 10:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant's arguements. Rossami (talk) 20:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether verified or not, it is non-notable. Quale 02:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Svend Aage Ovesen Jr.

This reads more like an obituary than an encyclopedic article. Svend Aage Ovesen gets two google hits [4]. Sorry, but aviators are not inherently notable and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Sjakkalle 08:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've dealt with a page I believe to be the same twice before, but I can't find its exact name or that of the user anymore at the moment. Delete anyway. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. As recreation, if I can find the data again. Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Got it! It was User:Captainovesen, I moved a previous deletion candidate to User:Captainovesen/Omary. The previous one was about himself. This article is different. Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. RickK 23:35, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE by 11 to 2. All anonymous and sockpuppet votes were discarded. Postdlf 06:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Pet Professional

A "3 month old web comic" -- Longhair | Talk 09:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 09:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 09:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet. Also, avoid terms like "going on for three months" because such terms need to be updated every month. It is better to write "Going on since ... ". Sjakkalle 11:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. ping 08:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like it might be notable someday, but not today. Nestea 02:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Voting to Keep if only because several well-known (to me, at least, who knows nearly no web-comic producers) web-comic writers are heavily behind this and believe it will take off in a big way. The concept is also nicely twisted. Is there a vote-category of "reveiw in 6 months" ? --Simon Cursitor 07:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I follow the webcomics community, and the closest this gets to notable even within that fairly small community is some ill-tempered comments about "What is this doing on the top of The Webcomics List?" A Man In Black 10:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hush whiners. Would you rather prefer the term "pet professional" to refer to the veterinarian? And I've yet to see something else as unique in referance to this term. Also, quite an original theme as well as funny. - Gravitron, pet owner (all you slashdot critics-dissers need a good hour in subspace SVS duelbox spanking, damned sony station newbies)
  • Only edits by anon.[5]
• Keep Keep it I like it.
  • Only edit by User:Petpro.[6], [7]
• Delete, not notable enough yet.
  • Only edits by anon.[8], [9]
• Keep. Becoming increasingly well known and is the only known reference to this term.
  • Only edit by User:MartenB.[10], [11]
• Keep. If Man-Faye can have an entry, as disgusting as he is, a resoundingly good web-comic with a bright future deserves one.
  • Only edit by anon.[12], [13]
• Delete. Not notable. Regarding this voting process, on May 01, at 3:42pm (unknown time zone, I'm guessing CDT/-6), the webcomic author added a request to his page that his readers come spam this vote process. Unrelatedly, I doubt Simoncursitor's claim of "several" web-comic writers being behind this; I suspect the list is just Scott Kurtz. --jholman 03:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. Scott Kurtz is several web-comic writers. ;)William McDuff 05:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While this may some day be a big hit etc, or actually have some history of significance that should be recorded, right now that is not the case. Wikipedia isn't advertising. (at least to me it isn't) Sidenote: I actually came to this deletion page via the Comic. --ORBIT 04:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Additional Note, references here. Web_Comic. Hmmm is if web comics belong in wikipedia something to take to the cooler? (Userfriendly and a few other historicals are ones that deserver mention, but should the line be drawn?) --ORBIT 00:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Now I'm a bit torn on the issue, as WikiProject_Comics --ORBIT 00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not written very well, but I'm still voting keep. There are plenty of other webcomics which have Wikipedia entries and they're not considered adverts.--Sionide 09:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, unique
  • Anon's only edit, also deleted William McDuff's comment.[14], [15]
• Keep, I figure it's better sooner added than later, get the process out of the way. Not to mention that if you wait, somethin' else might come and snag the entry.
  • Anon's only edit.[16]
• Keep, it was mentioned in 01/05/05's PVP so it's relevant to me. Plus as long as some people feel this is relevant who are the rest of us to delete it? I've seen the first issue's of comic books from the major publishers (DC and Marvel) go up on there first issue. Isn't this just prejudice against the independant publishers? (UTC)
  • Unsigned comment by anon.[17]
• Delete. And kill all sock puppets. Postdlf 10:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an interesting comic and has a relation to PVP. || Geofferic 7:37 CST, 2 May 2005
  • User's first edit.[18]
• Keep The entry isn't written very well and the comic hasn't been around too long, but as long as there is nothing more notable with the same name, I don't see any reason to delete it. I'm sure it'll be here again, eventually, anyway. --Corduroyninja 12:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit.[19]
• Keep. This has potential. Give it time to grow out of it's niche and I'm sure it will get better.
  • Anon's only edit.[20]
• No Vote(already voted - keep). Just a small addendum, allow me to be the first to land a five across the eye of JHolman, not as a reader, not as a voter, but as a person who can't stand stupid people making deceptive remarks, spreading misinformation knowingly and twisting facts to advance their agenda. The author didn't request that his readers will SPAM the place, he asked them to come and vote to keep, adding a joke that if you don't like it still go and vote keep. Now please tell me, what is exactly wrong about someone asking their supporters to show their support by voting in a place publicaly open to votes, whereas people are expected to voice their oppinion regarding something? Get a clue, trencher. - Gravitron
  • Comment made by 82.80.153.16, only edits are to this page.
  • We ignore all votes by brand-new users and votes by unsigned in anonymous users, primarily because there is no other surefire way to make sure that people aren't repeat voting under different names and IPs, and also because we expect Wikipedia users to be a little more familiar with the site before they start participating in policy discussions. So you're just wasting everyone's time without accomplishing anything, because all of your votes will be discarded. If anything, you're hurting your cause, because the more such votes turn up, the more established Wikipedians become convinced that the article should go. You piss us off. Postdlf 22:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Please Postdlf, be a little friendlier than that. "You piss us off" is not needed. Sjakkalle 12:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I get pissed off by cascading sock puppets that flood this page and alter/delete other peoples' comments. Maybe that's just me. Postdlf 12:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• No vote How come the page stopped displaying all of the comments? Someone sabotaged it using a wikipedia script exploit? Is there a "page 2" that I missed? Lets see if this edit will fix it. Ah, yes, there we go. I don't like registering, I'm TIRED of registering across a gazillion of sites and forums and blongs and what not. Plus, all it ended up doing was generating a torrent of SPAM towards my email, be that 90% advertisements and 10% of retards emailing me about things I could care less to know, like their family problems, why I like the wrong kind of games or that I should believe in god and he'll save me. It's not like I'm that an unknown in the world, hiding behind proxies and shit, most know me anyway. Do I piss you off? Your problem, weak mind. Go a few rounds on Samurai Spirits II vs Mizuki/cham-cham on hardest difficulty, it'll piss you even more that the PC cheats. The truth hurts, if you can't handle it then enter your pink sphere with ?ignore %tickname on macro. If you rather be a tyrant, then just be a tyrant, have an inner board for judging things if you fear votes so much. Not that I'll despise you any less, but you won't have to be pissed by people with free mind. Oh, and "established wikipedians", was that a joke? It's like calling an established forumer on someone with ten hundred thousand of posts. I'll have more trust in a casual passying-by poster to be genuine and not running multi-accounts to rig-boost numbers than I would in your resident members of "established wikipedians", because in the end, they're a community, with a bandwagon and a single flag, as such, they're far more devoted and capable of mischief than a just-stopped-2-say-my-thing person. It's like mindless goons of something aweful. Try throw a poll there, half of them will deploy 5,000 zombies to do voting for them and use multi-proxies to do the rest of the other half while banning them from access. - Gravitron (forget the article, I'm fired on the principle here...these wiki guys are crooked or decent?)
  • Before going off on the concepts of voting, please read how the procedure takes place. Valid reasons are considered, and then editors will come and base the vote on those. The comunity works because the majority of the comunity here wants it to work and reacts strongly agaist anything they see as wrong. --ORBIT 05:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:L1nX (Talk) Web 4 May (19:20) SAST. Interesting webcomic which looks likely to take of in the future
  • Actually User:L1nx (User:L1nX does not exist[21]); above comment was second edit, first edit was to Pet Professional.[22]
• Keep. It's a solid strip; while the article could use more information, I fall into the "not worth removing, worth improving" line. Timcotten 02:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User's seventh edit.[23]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 22:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

SMARTEAM

Bare stub article perhaps better suited to merging or deletion - Longhair | Talk 09:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless you can merge with new page about 3ds, SMARTEAM yields 95,800 hits on Google, and just the first page shows references on IBM.com and Engineering.com. Not a very well-known product, I suppose, but 3ds makes it, so merge onto a new article about that company, or if it becomes large enough to stand on its own (example: Windows needs a separate article from Microsoft), then give it its own article. As of now, there is no 3ds article (or at least one on that company). Do with it what you will. If nobody is willing to make another article, kill this one. JHMM13 03:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• There is a page on Dassault Systemes, which confusingly have the 3ds web site. No vote at present. --Dcfleck 22:24, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

• Merge with Dassault Systemes. Also redirect there. --Marianocecowski 11:22, 10 May 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. – Rich Farmbrough 18:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pearson distribution

borderline nonsense (I think) delete unless shown to be notable and cleaned up--Doc Glasgow 09:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Article entirely changed since nomination (Perhaps an explanation since some feel this nomination was inappropriate. I may be thick in genuinely mistaking the article for possible nonsense. This in part reflects my total ignorance of the subject, but then an encyclopaedia article should at least make sense to a reasonably educated person - and as it stood this did not - now it (almost) does.) --Doc Glasgow 11:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could I ask that people doing cleanup--whose work I greatly appreciate--please avoid using the VfD process on subjects of which they do not know enough to evaluate an article? Perhaps in this case the appropriate things to do would be add "math-stub" so the Math people will find it during their normal cleanup rounds, and perhaps a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics asking someone knowledgeable to look at it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Delete -- unless someone can make some sense of it and expand the article into something useful. - Longhair | Talk 10:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- changed my vote based on the cleanup since my original vote. -- Longhair | Talk 04:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Pearson distribution is something real and probably as notable as Gauss distribution or Poisson distribution. There are google hits a plenty on this distribution function. However the article has no real content and can be deleted as it stands now. If anyone wants to rewrite, I will reconsider. Sjakkalle 11:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At present the article says nothing about what the Pearson distribution looks like, but it is better than the last version which was a substub stating little else than the fact that it was a distribution. Alright the rewrite is valid albeit a stub, so weak keep then, but this is in desperate need of expansion. Sjakkalle 06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well the original was "The Personal Distribution is a Probability Distribution. It can be varied in many ways. There are a number of types." It's not much, but it's unquestionably a valid stub. This article should not have been nominated. It might have been better to pop a math-stub tag on it--and correct "Personal" to "Pearson", of course. VfD should never be used as a substitute for cleanup. Although it's very tempting because you get these dramatic death-bed cleanups, it's too risky a process and we've lost a lot of reasonable stubs because nobody on VfD that week happened to know the subject well enough to do cleanup or even assess the stub's value. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comment delves into the controversial aspects of immediatism vs. eventualism. The question of whether substubs should be kept and expanded, or just deleted until someone cares to make an article with more content is open to debate. My view on it was that "it can be varied in many ways" and "there are many types" didn't really say much, and that the article in that form was not useful. All distribution functions I have seen can be varied in some way or another. The rewrite is a bit better (that's why I voted to keep it), although I still miss a formula defining it. Sjakkalle 08:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My comment delves into nothing else but Wikipedia policy. We do not delete reasonable stubs (and what we see in the history is a reasonable stub) on subjects with encyclopedic potential. A family of statistical distributions has de facto encyclopedic potential. This article should never have been listed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will say Keep without the "weak" now that we have a formula for one of them. Sjakkalle 06:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think this should be deleted - it is a realy thing of interest and has already been added to:martinpeter

Part of the ethos of Wikipedia is that many people can add to the definition. Great oaks from tiny acorns grow, according to my understanding of biology, therefore I beleive it would be a mistake to delete this entry so earlt in life.

• Delete. The last post misses the point - we don't put non-notable things on Wikipedia as a means to help them grow into notability. That has to be accomplished first. --131.94.17.126 14:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) D'oh! Got signed out before I signed the post. It's me. -- 8^D ^gab 14:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• Redirect to Probability distribution —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 23:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I just cannot fathom why anyone would list an article on this distribution for deletion. Utterly beyond belief. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid stub. - Mustafaa 00:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, failing that delete, but do not redirect (and thus discourage recreation). Kappa 01:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable statistical distrbution. Klonimus 02:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Paul August ☎ 01:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - appears to be valid stub at the moment.Capitalistroadster 03:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - valid stub on notable topic - see [24]. Gandalf61 08:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, I cleaned up the article a bit. [25]. Unfortunately, I am no math expert. So I am not sure if the article should include all of the types in the family of the Pearson Distributions [26] [27] [28]. But in any case, its better than it was before. Zzyzx11 | Talk 08:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It probably should. Radiant_* 10:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) (oh, and keep in case that wasn't obvious already)
• Keep. Charles Matthews 10:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. N-Man^talk 11:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I added the probability density function of the Pearson type III distribution to Pearson distribution, which can be found in Abramowitz and Stegun. The fact that it appears there is enough reason for me to keep the article, even though I am not a statistician and I do not recall coming across this distribution before. Jitse Niesen 12:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot about Abramowitz and Stegun. Anyway, I added the characteristic function, mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis of the type III distribution to the article. Now, it looks much better. Zzyzx11 | Talk 13:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Doc Glasgow has said, it has been entirely changed from the original. However, even as "borderline jibberish", does it merit a VfD, rather than a vote for a tidy up? That said, I see the VfD has made a significant difference to this article! --stochata 09:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 17:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 13:22, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Alison Wheeler

Blatant vanity. This woman is of no importance or interest and really shouldn't be on wikipedia 163.1.239.33 10:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• and this is said by an IP address editor? Do Oxford University know you are posting this? Plenty of links in and out so far as I can see, and doesn't meet the charge of 'vanity' as not written by the subject of the article. --Vamp:Willow 11:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Established political person. Be careful about your tone Willow. It sounded a bit agressive. Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

sorry ... a case of seeing a VfD posted by an IP address that has apparently done nothing previous to asking for a deletion makes one suspect the motives (ie a personal attack during an election campaign?) --Vamp:Willow 13:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Current subject is marginal, reads like a CV. Could probably be rewritten into an article about the Beautiful South singer of the same name. I'll work on it if nobody else wants to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete She simply isn't prominent enough. Google search for "Alison Wheeler" + Delga gets 33 hits, 20 of them from Wikipedia or mirrors, and 4 from her personal website. Dsmdgold 15:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, major(ish) party candidate for national parliament. Kappa 20:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Oops I think I misread something. Kappa 21:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep also widely-known LGBT activist --Vamp:Willow 21:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If she's a candidate for Parliament from the Lib Dems, keep, but this fact is not indicated in the article. Meelar (talk) 21:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • My mistake, she does not appear to be a parliamentary candidate. Kappa 21:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, parliamentary candidate or not. Good Wikipedians like creator Jdforrester and subsequent editors VampWillow and Bearcat do not write up "blatant vanity" articles. Samaritan 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why thank you. I'm a "good Wikipedian" now? Gosh. James F. (talk) 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep. She's on the LibDem's English Council. Not my party, in case you were wondering. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable LGBT activist. Looking at the history page I dont think it was vanity. Megan1967 03:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Blatantly not a vanity article. ed g2s • talk 16:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, err, obviously. ;-) James F. (talk) 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep for the article. Strong delete the troll who nominated this. - Lucky 6.9 07:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 22:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Genocides in history

This page is a list of genocides in history. The basic format is a wiki link to the existing wikipedia article (say, Boer Wars) followed by a text paragraph on this page explaining why it was genocide. Reasons why I think this page should be deleted: 1) Category:Genocides already exists. Per the ongoing lists vs. categories discussion, adding Category:Genocides to the Boer Wars article itself will attract the attention of the editors who follow that topic. In contrast, adding a link to Boer Wars on this page will not. In the first case, the peer review process is likely to be much more robust. 2) The text blurbs on this page detailing why an indicent was genocide will have no hard linkage with the underlying article's content. This weakens the peer review process. 3) In debates over specific events to include/exclude, the list format makes it much easier for editors to say "Well, if X is on the list, Y should be too. Conversely, if Y doesn't count, then I'm going to remove X from the list now." Using categories forces someone using that argument to separately convince all of the X editors and all of the Y editors. Again, a much more robust peer review process. Feco 12:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is still fuzzy about what is genocide and tends to include any mass murder as a genocide, but I don't see any reason for deletion. Ericd 12:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment - This was originally a part of Genocide that was splited for unkown reasons. Ericd 12:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — The page will probably always have neutrality issues, but the content and layout appear reasonable for an encyclopedic article. It deserves to be more than just a category. — RJH 15:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concur with RJH. Categories are not substitutes for pages with explanations. Kappa 20:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to list of genocides Klonimus 02:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more than a category. — Davenbelle 01:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Klonimus. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this article needs major NPOVing. I was flabbergasted and alarmed by some of the entries. One such example, the destruction of Persepolis was based on two things - the Greek soldiers in Alexander's army wanting revenge for the Persian destruction of Athens in 480 BCE, and secondly Alexander at that stage of the campaign had not yet become sole ruler of the Persian lands and decided to burn the city in case the remnants of the Persian army was able to retake their capital. Alexander later regretted his actions after the Persian king was murdered. The word Genocide implies that Alexander deliberately set out to kill every Persian yet as we all know he adopted Persian customs and encouraged his soldiers to marry Persians. This to me doesnt sound like a deliberate campaign of genocide. None of this is mentioned in the article. Megan1967 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is way too much flame bait POV, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per most of the above comments; more may follow. Where can I vfd Feco's page? — 28 Apr 2005
  • (that remark by 203.198.237.30)
    • If you want to VfD Feco's page, you should read the instructions here. Radiant_* 14:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure which page of mine 203.198 wants to VfD. Per my original explanation of why I felt this article should be considered by VfDers, I don't think anyone will accuse me of making a bad-faith VfD attempt. I stumbled across a page that has a ton of problems and felt there was a much better way for wiki to address the topic. Alas, it looks like other users don't share my opinion. :( Feco 18:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An article with substantive or original content, or secondary content collated in an original manner, should not be deleted outright when flaws going only to formal or procedural aspects of the article have been identified. In the first instance, contructive alternatives other than outright deletion should be suggested. The absence of such alternatives stands against deletion in its own right — 9 May 2005.
• Comment. Very fuzzy page; for example, killing 4,000 Sikhs (out of 16-20 million) is a crime, but not an attempted genocide. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My vote's Keep, but NPOV, but as someone whose forebears were probably responsible ...--Simon Cursitor 07:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Delete. Way too POV, and will cause several edit wars.
  • Above vote by User:199.164.68.191.
• Delete, most of the claims are not supported by any evidence. JamesBurns 04:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, article appears very selective and loose on what "genocide" is. Iam 11:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fuzzy and ambiguous article - there are some entries in there that are not by definition "genocides" thus making it incorrect and POV un-encyclopaedic. Leanne 05:29, 6 May 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. —Xezbeth 13:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Phantasm

The original content was a dicdef. It was also false. The corrected content is still a mere dicdef. There is already a pre-existing definition at Wiktionary:Phantasm. I see no possibility of expansion and recommend deletion. Rossami (talk) 13:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've updated the page to be something else, the cult-classic horror movie. 132.205.45.148 20:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep after the rewrite. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not knowing anything about the reach or impact of the film, I will change my vote to abstain. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite, although it might be best to move Phantasm to Phantasm (film) or Phantasm (movie) and move Phantasm (disambiguation) to Phantasm. -Sean Curtin 01:46, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I agree about moving the disambig. page here and moving this to Phantasm (film). --Myles Long 22:39, 2 May 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?) 20:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sports Internet Destination!

also Sports Shopping by the same author (I'll split these if people think it necessary DJ Clayworth 15:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Article by User:Sports Internet Destination (copy of his user page) about a website. The site offers "Top Sites" search engines, and downloads, etc. Looks like advertising. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• This is a FACTUAL description of a company with relationships with some of the world's largest sports retailers. "Top Sites" is put in parentheses because Sports Internet Destination! describes its search engines as indexing top sports sites, this is descriptive not advertising. If objectionable, would rather remove that term. No basis for deleting entire article (which was not embellished or drawn out, kept matter of fact). Would welcome outside contributors to the article so that it evolves in Wikipedia as it should. Thank you so much for your consideration.

  (Moved top-posted comment by User:Sports Internet Destination here. I presume this is a keep vote by the author. Lupo 14:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• This is a great forum, and we appreciate the feedback. We have the world's top (or close to top) search engines on our sites in 4 separate sports categories, and a diverse offering of top sports retailers, plus about 100 professionally written features, articles, full publications, etc -- we are a resource and information site. We want to be included in the fairest manner and will abide by all rules but are seeking fairness (our site is new but highly regarded). Posters on Wikipedia seem very intelligent, and I'm sure (hopeful) quite reasonable Thank you again very much. It is appreciated. (the above comment by author - moved by DJ Clayworth)
• Last so as not to be overkill. Sports Internet Destination! is a strong resource site. It includes HSC Publications which has been around since 1996 and has comprehensive articles and full publications at the top or near the very top of comprehensive information for the entire sports collectibles industry, which is not a small industry. The Wikipedia posts citations mentioned below, those are topics for which Sports Internet Destination! has written detailed, comprehensive articles for those very topics, and the link is I believe appropriately maintained in the External Links section. The posts provide resource value to the Wikipedia community on major companies (and CEO's etc.) and the links are to fully developed articles, appropriately referenced, on those same topics. Hope that helps a little. We'll see how turns out. (Moved yet another top-posted comment by the article's author.)

Didn't post on top this time! Deleting sports shopping is unnecessary. Not only is sports shopping a significant topic area (the sports area is huge and sports gifts are very popular) but comparison shopping sites are a big thing and mention is made of quite a few choices to serve as a reference for the Wikipedia reader. I understand that people do not want advertising. I am new to this community but the criterion I would use is whether the content serves as a value to the Wikipedia reader, whether it provides useful resource infromation, and that is how our posts are written and do contain. I am not jealous of anyone else's contributions or posts, as long as they provide value to the Wikipedia reader that is all I care about!!!!!! (thanks for letting me vent, constructively). Alex

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Advertisement. Wikipedia is not a web directory, nor a platform for self-promotion. android↔talk 14:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)!
• Delete. Part of an advertisement campaign; check Special:Contributions/Sports Internet Destination. The articles Brandon Steiner, Steiner Sports, Jeff Rosenberg, David Kohler, Sports Store, and Sports Shopping need scrutiny and cleanup or deletion, too. Minor point: Google gets only 59 hits for "Sports Internet Destination!". Lupo 14:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition, the site's Alexa ranking is 483,659. android↔talk 14:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising/vanity CDC (talk) 20:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising vanity cruft for a non-notable company that appears to not actually sell much of anything. A bunch of eBay affiliate links makes this a superstore? Check this guy's contributions out too - he's sprinkled his site link into the "external links" section of a number of sports-related categories... I've already reverted two.FCYTravis 02:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I got a chance to look at the website in question and User:Sports Internet Destination's contributions, and it ain't pretty. User insists on adding linkspam to various articles, some tangentially related to sports collectibles. Most of it has already been reverted. The website is simply a list of affiliates and web ads, and I can't even find the publications the author has referred to here. android↔talk 03:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website advertising/promo. Megan1967 04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Hi. Even if this page does get deleted (and I hope it doesn't) we're going to continue to work hard in the Wikipedia community. I believe in the concept of community and shared standards, Wikipedia gets 80 million hits per day and has so many dedicated people. HSC, which was incorporated into Sports Internet Destination! has spent 9 years providing the best information available in the sports collectibles industry. We've been dedicated and we've stood the test of time. We need to learn your rules, but please if you agree work with us so that it is valuable for contributors to grow and learn and not just about punishment and deletion. Thanks.
  • moved another unsigned comment by User:Sports Internet Destination. Please add your comments at the bottom of the discussion and sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~).
• Delete, not notable, advertising. Ashibaka (tock) 23:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

• Keep. Steiner Sports is one of the largest sports licensing agencies in the country. Just because you are not familiar with them, does not mean they are non-notable. If you have any doubts, spend a few minutes in the industry trade publication Street & Smiths Sports Industry Journal, where the company is mentioned prominently each issue in news bits. In case you are wondering, I have no connection to Steiner Sports. Morton devonshire 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Link building

Non-encyclopedic, at best dicdef, and probably a copyvio based on the way it's written. Brighterorange 14:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• marked as copyvio 'cos it is --Doc Glasgow 22:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)- someone who knows more about the subject might like to look at the history and vote on deletion
  • Well, if it helps to make the case more clear, the only other contributions by the author of the article (User:Megrisoft) are link spam [29] that were rv

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 22:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pelle plutt productions

Non-notable. 18 hits on google for "Pelle plutt productions". --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I wish we could keep just because I like saying "Pelle plutt productions".  :) RickK 23:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 02:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 09:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of sexually active popes

I don't really see what's encyclopedic here. --Conti|✉ 16:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Fascinating. I almost said cleanup, but that's (1) ambiguous considering the subject matter (;-> and (2) already well underway, and will continue. See talk:List of sexually active popes and join in (the discussion). Andrewa 19:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep scandalous. Klonimus 21:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep an eye on this one for vandalism. —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 22:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; a definitely notable and distinguishing characteristic of a subset of historical popes. Teknic is right about the vandalism risk, but there's no more here than many other targets. Samaritan 23:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't really see what's not encyclopedic here.--Gene_poole 23:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. — Davenbelle 01:29, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this around.. Sexy Schoolgirl 01:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Notoriety and notability. Megan1967 04:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Cyberjunkie 07:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete - "according to various sources" - not confirmed, thus POVDeirYassin 08:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Sofixit. I'm sure most of this information can be confirmed from historical sources. The parts that can't be, should be stricken. Keep. Radiant_* 10:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Pornocracy. Pavel Vozenilek 08:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please merging would not be helpful Yuckfoo 16:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Priests have told me that some popes have been sexually active, so the general content of this article seems truthful. Jesus said he would make a church that "The gates of Hell will not prevail against"; he didn't say he'd make a perfect church. Samboy 06:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 1) I'm not sure anywhere else would house this, and as social commentary it has value; 2) I'm pretty sure, if deleted, it will simply respawn. This is an "out of the bottle" --Simon Cursitor 07:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless there is some form of corroboration from a reputable source. "I'm sure most of this information can be confirmed from historical sources" and "Priests have told me that some popes have been sexually active" are not statements of proof. It simply has to be verified before being included as an encyclopaedia article. Jez 07:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, fascinating, etc., etc. Though I have some reservations about this standing alone as a topic, I can't really think of what else it could be grouped with, so meh. Postdlf 07:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that it's fascinating, but it also needs an extreme cleanup for sources and NPOV. I've started on that (please examine the current version if you voted for delete of merge before) and will continue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Don't be ridiculous, of course its encyclopedic. --New Progressive 01:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- pointless information, but enough people will be wanting to know it for similarly pointless reasons. - Longhair | Talk 04:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting bit of history. Leithp 14:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how this is unencyclopedic, and the idea that we need to source everything in it for it to be acceptable is also poor - it is common knowledge, for instance, that Alexander VI and Paul III had illegitimate children. john k 17:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The information seems sourced, and what isn't seems well on its way to being so. Historical, encyclopedic, and quite interesting no matter what your religious background IMHO. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but... rename to something like List of popes alleged to have been sexually active - that is, unless you can limit the list to popes who were irrefutably active... slandering popes was popular hobby among Protestants in ye olden days, so I would be dubious about some claims. --BD ^thimk 05:12, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Keep, but funny title, how about "list of horny popes" =) --Prem 06:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Xenodius

Apparently fictional word or possibly an online nickname. Only 20 google hits. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No useful content or prospects of gaining any. Andrewa 19:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with nomination. Better to Vfd this before sending it to wiktionary. Kappa 19:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no use other than an online nickname. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 02:55, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 22:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Brunswick green

Merge with British racing green and Redirect -- or vice versa. Ben-w

• Keep. This listing is by a relative newbie, who apparently doesn't quite understand the purpose of VfD. See User talk:Ben-w. Andrewa 18:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. I'm a relative newbie who didn't quite understand the purpose of VfD. Ben-w.
• I was under the impression that Brunswick was the GWR livery colour, and differed in shade from BRG. But I stand to be corrected --Simon Cursitor 07:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 22:16, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ululation

fixing the VfD display; no comment. Ben-w

• No {{vfd}} tag. No reason I can see to VFD this page. Keep. —msh210 21:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep otherwise redirect to Palestinian, since they like to engage in Ululation. Klonimus 02:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've added the VfD tag as a matter of principle, but I see no reason not to keep this. Radiant_* 08:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm the author and since I'm a newbie, I didn't know how to work this. I want this deleted because it is a dictionary definition and non-encyclopedic. If kept, please clean up my bad english. Frenchman113 20:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind, looks like my original crap was already fixed. Keep Frenchman113 20:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And ignore Klonimus's redirect trolling. - Mustafaa 00:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What, no mention of Xena: Warrior Princess? -Sean Curtin 01:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sephardi women do it too. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- short, clear & I can see nothing wrong with it.--Simon Cursitor 07:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its use in various cultures, as described in the article, is encyclopedic (and probably beyond the scope of a simple dicdef). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No reason not to keep, the original version I wanted to delete was fixed, so we should just close this vfd down Frenchman113 18:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's simpler just to let it run its course. Kappa 20:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Animal reviews

Not exactly sure what is going on here, but I am pretty darn sure it does not belong. Indrian 17:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikispam. Amusing site but no evidence of notability yet. Andrewa 18:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 04:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is big in my office at the moment, so I say keep it up, although I know what you mean.

Comment: Please sign your votes and make them in the standard format, User:212.137.57.41, otherwise they don't count for much (they still do a little). No change of vote. Andrewa 09:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia your office? No? Then Delete. Nestea 02:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- reviews on what, taste? smell? speed? No. - Longhair | Talk 04:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:26, May 3, 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. —Xezbeth 09:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

CreateBlog

Advert for a website. Indrian 17:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• May be notable blog site, but really needs de-adverting. Will await to see Alexa rank. Mgm|^(talk) 17:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Alexa 6791 and growing. Andrewa 18:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. I'll buy that, but it needs a major cleanup. It is unacceptable as it stands now. Indrian 19:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa rank suffices. Keep (and cleanup, of course). Mgm|^(talk) 20:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and cleanup. Sufficiently notable. Megan1967 04:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I cleaned it up a bit to make it a little less ad liked and POV. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. notable N-Man^talk 11:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advert.--Prem 06:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:13, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Church of Raven

Messageboardcruft. Indrian 17:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• It is more than just an "Internet" religion, and is growing in popularity, which can be seen from the growth of the board topic from one page to nine pages in a matter of two months. It flourishes on the Rapture of Raven section on The Starfire Shrine. The religion is taken quite seriously by it's followers.
• I've had messageboard topics run 30 pages within 2 months, nothing special. Every religion is taken seriously by its followers and article fails to establish context especially on what the "Rapture of Raven section on The Starfire Shrine" is. Delete as promotion of a non-notable messageboard forum and attached religion. Mgm|^(talk) 17:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, forumcruft, not notable. 6 Google Hits, all of them unrelated to this topic. I also have my doubts regarding the assertion that it is "taken seriously" by its followers. How serious can one possibly be when they say they worship a cartoon character? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oooooh, nine pages! I am so impressed! Delete. Radiant_* 18:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Martg76 19:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "*fanboy squeal*" says it all. RickK 23:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• This is just too funny not to weigh in on. Obviously, our friend has been watching/reading too much Teen Titans. That or they worship birds and Oldsmobiles. Delete with a resounding Azarath Metrion Zinthos! - Lucky 6.9 06:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This sounds like the kind of "religion" someone might come up with after a few too many drinks. Firebug 06:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - one of possible dozens of similar "religions" in various forums - Skysmith 08:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• DEL - A pointless group which does nothing more than try to gain notoriety, non-encyclopedic. Who 03:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • When deleted, please remove from Deadend pages. Who 03:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rhino's Energy Drink

Still an advertisement. Sitting since February with practically no content. Dictdef. Non-notable (Google has few results and Google Groups has none). Need I go on? Delete. —msh210 19:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What about Google Gulp? —Wahoofive (Talk) 21:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What about it? It's not a real product. Delete, nn, ad. RickK 23:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe Google Gulp is worth, Delete--Prem 06:20, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikispam--nixie 04:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 22:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

John Miller (false Billy the Kid)

This entry does not offer any useful information. Unless it is modified to include much more content and biographical information, it should be deleted. Collins.mc 19:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete patent nonsense. Ben-w
• Keep and expand. This was a real person who claimed for years to have been Billy the Kid. Although his claim has been pretty much debunked, there was a lawsuit to exhume Billy the Kid for DNA testing. —Wahoofive (Talk) 21:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only if rewritten. Born in 3005? RickK 23:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I tagged this as nonsense. If someone wants to write a legitimate article about the claims mentioned by Wahoofive, then they can do so, but I don't see how this nonsense is necessary for that. Firebug 23:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. ugen64 23:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto, Keep if rewritten. Kappa 23:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What should the deadline for being rewritten be? Collins.mc 00:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Or, delete now and if someone wants to create a legitimate article in the future, they may. Collins.mc

• • If consensus is to delete, that would be five days. If not, that would be five millennia or thereabouts :) Radiant_* 08:17, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I will have a go at re-writing this over the weekend. Capitalistroadster 04:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 04:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, list on Requested Articles for a rewrite from scratch. Radiant_* 08:17, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• keep once rewritten Yuckfoo 16:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless fleshed a great deal. james_anatidae 06:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the article can be sourced and it can be demonstrated that there was something notable about this case, it can be kept instead. Quale 02:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Perfectly legitimate stub. PatGallacher 13:41, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Keep Much better since I posted it for deletion. Collins.mc 19:13, 1 May 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 22:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ariel Sokolovsky

This seems to be a new user's userpage in the main namespace, see User:Ariel Sokolovsky. There is no indication of fame as a writer. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I wrote many articles and posts online.

This wikipedia entry is a stub.You can add to it if you want.Don't delete it. (comment left by User:Ariel Sokolovsky)

• Delete, Ariel, I say this with the greatest respect, but unless you can demonstrate that thousands of people *already* know your name, and present a credible case that some number of them would expect to find you in a general topic encyclopedia, you should not have a Wikipedia article under your own name. This is one of the basic Wikipedia policies. It's on the one of the first help pages, I think. JesseW 07:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Don't DeleteThousands of people around the world actualy do know my name.I gave lectures in various places in NY including 770 Eastern Parkway (Chabad Lubavitch headquarters)which was live broadcast worldwide on 770live in English Hebrew and Russian in front of thousands people. Since it was created my website [30] was visited 10s of thousands of times by people from all over the world.It was mentioned on a number of other more popular sites.I was interviewed and profiled by Luke Ford for example.My picture was in Maariv in the begining of November as well as in the archives of Beis Moshiach. Some of my activities are also mentioned on Chabad Online COL.org.il and Chabad.info.

According to my website stats many people look it up by searching for my name. There are articles in Wikipedia about contemporary people less famous than me . (comment left by User:Ariel Sokolovsky)

• Delete, Even though "Ariel Sokolovsky" has a lot of results on google, I see not reason to keep the article as it is, and I wouldn't change my vote if there's not a serious working on the page that would justify it. --Marianocecowski 11:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:18, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Malapati

This guy is a research fellow at an Indian university (no professor); has only two publications as far as I can see, and doesn't seem notable. - Marcika 19:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE - Vanity - Roodog2k 19:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, article is now completely different from the one that was nominated - SimonP 22:23, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Exodus (organization)

Copyvio and advert. See: [31] unsigned by Sethmahoney

What's your vote, Sethmahoney? Fix or delete? —msh210 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I vote Delete or redirect to Ex-gay, which already has a section on Exodus. -Seth Mahoney 22:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: For legal reasons, I'm blanking-copyvioing it. See old version to vote. —msh210 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This might be a legitimate (if non-PC) subject for an article - but as it stands I agree it is a copyvio and POV amend or delete --Doc Glasgow 21:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am being bold and redirecting this to Ex-gay, an article which has a good (non-copyvio) section on Exodus, and other similar organizations too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Split out Section is big enough to have its own article. Klonimus 02:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, copyright violation. No redirect - who would type in "Exodus (organization)" in the search engine? Megan1967 04:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a good point, but we have a link to Exodus (organization) from Exodus (disambiguation) so someone who types "Exodus" in a search engine and chooses the Wikipedia link will find Ex-gay through a redirect such as the one I created. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio and either split out section from ex-gay or redirect. (Deleting admin should make sure they're deleting the right thing :) ) Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I performed the split and restored the VfD notice (I'll edit ex-gay to reflect that if this article survives VfD). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Craig Mechler

Added by repeat vandal, almost no google hits. Delete or, if verified to be correct, merge to appropriate page. - Taxman 20:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, is he famous?--Prem 06:21, May 2, 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 22:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kérnaxion

No Google hits. No Google Groups hits. Same if the accent mark is omitted. Likely hoax or neologism. Delete. —msh210 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 04:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. Quale 02:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Kérnaxion" has Google hits now: The third is this very deletion discussion. The same anonymous user also created Wiktionary:Kérnaxion, referring to Wikipedia for support. There's no evidence that this language exists at all. This is apparently an attempt to create a language from scratch, using Wiktionary and Wikipedia as hosting services for publicising it. Neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary are here for that. Delete. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 May 9 (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 22:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

John Gormallys Ould Queen

Bad vanity. CDC (talk) 20:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, patent nonsense. Speedied. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:18, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

John Delong

Vanity/silliness. CDC (talk) 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Sjakkalle 06:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Quale 02:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Leithp 22:48, 1 May 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 22:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Junxure

Advertising for a minor product that appears to have been custom-made for one customer? CDC (talk) 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not advertising. --bainer 01:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Quale 02:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

3ciprocal linking

Link spam about link spamming. Wow. 3ciprocal, linked to in this article, was deleted as a copyvio. CDC (talk) 20:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete wikispam --nixie 04:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There doesn't seem to any substantial information available as to the legitimacy of this. --TheParanoidOne 20:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Young Democrats at UCI

Unenc nn (just a nn branch of a notable org) del. —msh210 21:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was an officer in my own University's chapter of the College Dems, so I'm hardly biased - but individual chapters of national orgs must pass a pretty high notability bar to break away from the national group's article. -- 8^D ^gab 01:25, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Merge. The article can still be incorporated into University of California--Svest 01:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 04:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Radiant_* 08:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost every university in the USA has a "Young Democrats" organization, along with Young Republicans, etc. What would be notable is one that doesn't. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable about this branch. Quale 02:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ace of spades hq

Just another nonnotable blog: del. —msh210 21:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Reverted to remove vandalism and faked votes. Delete.
• Delete, not notable, blog promo. Megan1967 04:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Very informative. Delete Iorsh 21:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ➥the Epopt 21:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bailey

This has got to be a hoax, right? A professor selling roadkill to earn extra income??? P Ingerson 21:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - He is actually a real person [32] but however just by judging the article and the Google page hits. (only 49 for "Michael Bailey" + "Berry College") It is not notable to be in the encylopedia. --Chill Pill Bill 21:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as above - this article may also be defamatory (is that grounds for speedy?)--Doc Glasgow 21:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a real person but I think a student is attributing random crap to him. Note that the article's creator removed the vfd tag. FreplySpang (talk) 21:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN and seems to pretty much be a joke anyway. As FreplySpang said, the article's creator has removed the vfd tag (three times, I believe). --Whimemsz 01:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any guesses as to who removed the VfD tag again? [33] It is now restored. The article looks most like an attack on Mr. Bailey. Sjakkalle 06:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Note admins: the article's creator in April 29th has now made the page that was nominated for deletion a disamb page then created a new seperated article: Michael Bailey (Berry College). It still contains the text that could be defamatory. --Chill Pill Bill 16:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Lifology

Non-notable neologism/vanity philosophy. CDC (talk) 21:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delette Vanity! José San Martin 23:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research/vanity. Gazpacho 02:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, promo. Megan1967 05:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rahul Easwar

Self-promotion. Amazon hasn't heard of the person, and Google barely has. See Lifology, above. CDC (talk) 21:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OCLC WorldCat - a very big union library catalog - hasn't heard of him either. CDC (talk) 22:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Quale 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

blam.gif

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Brad scraborough

vanity. ugen64 23:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notable only for being the first vanity article in a while that can't even spell their own surname correctly. Average Earthman 09:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable and just plain weird. Leithp 17:56, 1 May 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 22:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dictablanda

• del. non-English neologism. dicdef. nonnotable pun. Mikkalai 23:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Mikkalai. - Stoph 23:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, dictadura and dictablanda are terms widely used in conjunction with Spanish politics. The New Spain: From Isolation to Influence, Kenneth Maxwell and Steven Spiegel. A History of Spain and Portugal, Stanley Payne. Used of the regime of Dámaso Berenguer as well as late Franco Spain. Article is accurate and well-written, if short. Ben-w
  • the question is exactly how widely. If you search in English pages google, you will get 133 unique hits, half of which are from wikipedia mirrors and other self-made lexicons. Mikkalai 16:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Ben-w. However, the article should be expanded so that the article would be refering, in a way, to a political expression used even in English to express a political situation. Svest 00:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. –Hajor 00:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose move to soft dictatorship -- that would imply rewriting this article to such an extent that it would no longer be the dictablanda article. Alternative proposal: create soft dictatorship and link the two. –Hajor 22:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that soft dictatorship and dictablanda are not the same notions? If they are the same then the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) spells it clearly: "Title your pages using the English name, if one exists". Mikkalai
• They overlap, but they're not the same. Dictablanda was coined as a proper name in 1930s Spain w/r/t one administration and the application of the term was subsequently generalised to other similar regimes. Berenguer's dictablanda was a soft dictatorship, but the two articles aren't interchangeable. –Hajor 20:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So after all, it is a Spanish word and has nothing to do in English-language wikipedia. It may perfectly be a part of the history of the English term and redirect there. Mikkalai 22:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's job is to provde me with "all human knowledge" without making me learn Spanish. Kappa 07:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, describes an important concept. Kappa 00:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:or move to soft dictatorship as suggested below Kappa 22:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • It describes a POW concept used by some to justify some dictatorships, saying they are "good" dictatorships. The question is whether it is an English word or it is used in expressions, kind of, quoting: "a nice Spanish neologism 'dictablanda'".Mikkalai 16:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not used to justify some dictatorships, it is used to describe some dictatorships. The POV is your own. It is not a neologism unless you deny the existence of the quoted sources. Ben-w
      • Cool down. I am entitled to my POV, if it is not in the article. I do not deny these sources. I am questioning whether this term is in wide circulation. From time to time a respectable person coins a cool word, but not all of them go mainstream. Examples abound. Mikkalai 18:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We should put documented, important concepts under the most appropriate title. If there isn't an English word for it, the Spanish one will have to do. Kappa 17:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • the English word is soft dictatorship: 740 english anguage google hits, as opposed to 273 for "dictablanda". Both therm are a bit underused for an "important" political concept, but I will settle for the english version. Changing my vote. Mikkalai 18:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as good little stub on important concept. Capitalistroadster 04:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to soft dictatorship an english-language equivalent, which is more ofthen used in English texts. Mikkalai 18:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If it's a real Spanish term, and not just something a Wikipedian dreamed up, I see nothing wrong with it. — JIP | Talk 20:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Right here we have a similar Spaniardism, democradura, which is being happily redirected to Illiberal democracy. Mikkalai
• Keep. If it were merely a Spanish language term, I would vote delete as this is an English language wikipedia. Although I was not familiar with the term (I am not a political scientist), research shows that it is a poli sci term used in English so it is a definite keep. Quale 02:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is a very frightening reason for deletion, it means I will have to learn all the world's languages just to look up all the world's political concepts. Kappa 23:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles for political terms in other languages, like Rzeczpospolita. —Seselwa 22:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a genuine political term with real-life occurance, but needs expansion. Kuralyov 09:50, 6 May 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. —Xezbeth 09:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nokia N91

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is not a place for advertising. RickK 23:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree on the principle that Wiki is not a place for advertising but I still see other products being featured on Wikipedia! An example is this List of Nokia products including links to Nokia products. However, I vote for deleting Nokia N91 on the basis that it is still a project as the article itself claims. Svest 23:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic subject. BBC covers it, even quotes a Gartner market analyst on it, and so should we. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all Nokia products onto one Nokia page. Avoids needless repetition of common features. -- 8^D ^gab 01:19, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Delete. It might be encyclopedic when the product is released, though probably as part of a larger article. In any case, the crystal ball rule says that it doesn't appear on Wikipedia until its an actual product. ---Isaac R 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on such a rule. See Windows Longhorn (no fixed delivery date now, originally planned for 2006, now expected sometime 2006, more likely 2007) and Windows Blackcomb (announced February 2000, has every appearance of being true vaporware). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable cellphone, worthy of having its own article. Klonimus 02:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable product to be released shortly. The crystal ball rule should be used with caution and should not apply to things that are likely to be successful when released. Besides, there are things that can be reasonably said about it now. Capitalistroadster 04:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As well, 240 Google News results shows that there is already considerable interest in this product. [34] Capitalistroadster 04:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I do not get the logic of those that are in favor of deleting this. It is like saying we should have deleted Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith before it is released because it is still in production. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, I tried to make it a little more NPOV by adding what I read in this article on CNN.com saying that Nokia is hoping this product will help them outsell iPods. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and cleanup. Sufficient notability. Megan1967 05:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Saying we should delete all products as adverts is like saying we should delete all films as adverts. Or maybe merge all productions of Paramount pictures to one article. If the product is notable enough or novel enough (as this one appears to be), rather than a minor incremental improvement on a previous model, then it would be worthy of an article. Average Earthman 09:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Nokia products. Radiant_* 11:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• 'keep please Yuckfoo 16:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete or merge somehow --- as per the Crystal Ball Rule Roodog2k 16:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)Roodog2k 16:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Crystal ball is incorrect, this product has been released (as of 27th of April). It's like calling an article referring to the Hitchhiker's Guide movie 'crystal ball'. Average Earthman 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the article, it indicates release at the of the year, which is what I based my vote on. If its considered released now, thats a different matter entirely. For the record, I invoked the crystal ball rule,based on "unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event, or unless planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion." Release of a product from a company is not as predictable as an astronimical event, but may or may not be notable. An operating system update used by many, mnay, millions or a movie based on a book read by many, many, millions would certainly be notable. I'm not sure how notible a future release of a cell phone may be... So, since its out, its out. IXNAY on the crystal ball, OBE. KEEP

Roodog2k 16:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, concur with Average Earthman. Kappa 17:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just a note about the crystal ball rule: it shouldn't be applied in all cases of this kind of stuff. As noted earlier in this discussion, some vaporware is notable (*cough* Duke Nukem Forever *cough*), and other projects that are still projects have articles on here (such as Windows Longhorn and Windows Blackcomb). --Idont Havaname 00:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - renamed and kept - SimonP 22:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tvphotog

Apparent vanity - fewer than 300 google hits, most of which are probably irrelevant and/or typos. ugen64 23:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The title of the article should be TV Photog. It is a real function and still getting 63,200 hits in google. No doubt the article should be fixed and expanded. --Svest 01:47, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to TV Photog and Keep. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and Keep. N-Man^talk 11:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and Keep. 'Photog' is widely used within the broadcast television industry in the United States (usually TV news) to refer to a videographer. Dcm1101 20:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 22:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Congress of viena

Just another non-sense article Svest 23:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Congress of Vienna. RickK 23:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Already redirected. Someone went ahead and did it, which, while not exactly protocal, was probably for the best in this situation, as the original was such clear nonsense. (obviously, I would vote to redirect) -- 8^D ^gab 01:17, 2005 Apr 28 (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.