Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 14

April 14

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 material moved to wikiquote, article deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotes on Fossil Record

• Delete - I would say this was a newbie mistake, except the markup is OK. Pointless. - DavidWBrooks 01:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete - maybe not pointless, but it belongs in Wikiquote, not here. (anonymous) 03:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge info with the pages of the authors or of the respective topics but delete this article. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with respective authors. Megan1967 07:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with respective authors and/or Move to Wikiquote Dalf | Talk 01:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the authors, Add to wikiquote, and Redirect to something. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 15:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ROLF

Little content. lol got deleted, so why shouldn't this. Howabout1 23:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rolfing, even though that's not the meaning the creator of the page intended. —Wahoofive | Talk 01:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• LOL (Internet slang) does seem to exist so there might be an argument for this too, but perhaps it would be best to merge and redirect these types of things to an Internet acronyms page? --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds like an excellent idea, Fuzzball! Strong concur, merge & redir. Radiant_* 08:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Internet slang, no need to redirect. — JIP | Talk 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Internet slang. The redirect won't do any harm. Thryduulf 15:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rolfing. Klonimus 15:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirected to Internet slang. 213.190.129.19 18:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. "Please do not remove or deface this notice or blank, merge, or move this article while the discussion is in progress. However, you are welcome to edit this article and improve it." -- Plutor 18:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Internet slang. Billlund 03:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to internet slang--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RRGB

This is plainly a vanity page. It was created by the same anonymous IP that created The Vacant, which apparently consists of many of the same people. Both projects are around a year old. Junjk 03:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Firebug 01:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: NN --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, consider replacing with redir to RGB as possible misspeling. Radiant_* 14:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like adv. So week delete. 213.190.129.19 18:06, 14 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 (block-compressed error). CDC (talk) 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radioheadesque

• Neologism? — Kieff | Talk 22:48, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• I vote for deletion. This material should be included in the main Radiohead page, and we don't need an article for the adjective form of every rock band that exists. Padraic 18:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Post-Britpop is most fitting than Radioheadesque... the contributor must have had too much eggnog when he started this article on Dec. 25.
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - You could combine anything with "-esque." Radioheadesque has page results of "656." There is no Wikipedia article about "Marioesque" which according to some web results describes a game that resembles the "Super Mario" games. The page results "664." Even some people have used the phrase "Newtonesque" to describe the defunct Apple PDA or the famous scientist. --Anonymous Cow 01:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Goatsesque" has only 29 google hits. Klonimus 06:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Unless we want U2esque and Hootie and the Blowfishesque. Dave the Red (talk) 02:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deletesque. Esquecruft. -- 8^D ^gab 03:23, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Delete. BD2412 stole my joke. ;-( android↔talk 03:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ha! You've got to get up pretty early to beat me to an awful pun. -- 8^D ^gab 15:41, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 07:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do we have an article on Esque (suffix)? If so may want to redirect there on general principle. Otherwise, delete. Radiant_* 08:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't have an article on the suffix, although if we did it should be at -esque to match other suffixes (see List of English suffixes). I note that Wiktionary also doesn't have an entry for it. Thryduulf 15:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Radiohead. If anyone makes X-esque, preferably redirect it to X rather than bringing it to Vfd. Kappa 11:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Thryduulf 15:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as spurious. The slippery slope of separate entries for grammatical derivatives makes my head spin and the servers quiver with trepidation. Dave1898 11:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rats & Star

Noogz marked this vfd on March 12, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) Delete, not notable. Firebug 01:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Provisional Keep If somone can verify the information in this article, then it should be kept, else I vote Delete Klonimus 02:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the Japanese page has been there for a year and lists even more releases. They have various albums on sale at amazon.co.jp like [1] for example. Kappa 11:31, 14 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; make redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning From the Scriptures

• delete I created this page as well as some others which I want to consolidate. Aid to Bible Understanding and Insight on the Scriptures. Aid has already been marked for deletion by someone else, I am going to mark Reasoning also. george 00:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep but make it a redirect or a very short page that then refers the reader to the consolidated pages mentioned above. This is a particular book; it deserves a separate page. (anonymous) 3:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional Keep Might I suggest the creation of a unified page on JW Bible Commentaries. That said I belive that most texts put out by major religion's theological press are encyclopedic. Klonimus 03:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment Thanks, I actually already started it with the 'merge' Reference works of Jehovah's Witnesses George 13:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If by 'consolidate' you mean 'merge', you don't need VfD for that. I should point out that the title is wrongly capitalized, btw. Abstain until Wikiproject:religion comments on it. Radiant_* 08:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank You, the 'From' in the title is capitalised on the book's cover. Is this what you are referring to? George

• Delete, as per authors request. Megan1967 09:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Red vs Blue episode guide, Red Vs. Blue episode guide: Season 2, Red Vs. Blue episode guide: Season 3

I nominate this page for deletion for the crimes of fancruft-dom and complete misuse of an encyclopedia. If much larger series don't qualify for this type of extensive Episode Guide Treatment, neither does this fancruft nonsense.--TheGrza 07:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Um... I'd like to call for a resolution on this issue. It's been two weeks, guys. Time to acknowledge, shake hands, and move on. Joylock 3:42, April 26, 2005.

• Merge While an episode guide is probably not deserving of an article, the VfD/Precidents seems to indicate that precident says we merge all information on the series into a central article, in this case on RvB. Whether or not episode guids are encyclopedic; I would tend to say that in a limited way, yes, they can be. Should Wikipedia echo tvtome, I don't think so. nb. The Simpsons has a very successful episode guide "List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes" TheDaveRoss 15:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. An episode list, I have no problem with, but the guide goes too far. --TheGrza 17:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I wouldn't want articles on each individual episode, but I'm happy with the list. Radiant_* 08:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Marginal Keep based upon precedent but condense a little. Some of the formatting here makes it almost look like a cut-and-paste from a fan site, so I'd check for copyvio. Wikipedia is not paper argument applies here, IMO. 23skidoo 13:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all info into one 'episode guide' article, maybe condense a bit. --InShaneee 16:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Radiant on this. Does need a cleanup though K1Bond007 23:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Cleanup and simplify the articles' information, merge it into a single article, and give it a name List of Red vs. Blue episodes so people don't confuse its purpose for an episode guide. --NormanEinstein 02:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and condense. The reason these were put on separate pages was that the main RvB page was getting towards 64k. I suggest merging all three guides and condensing info. Last several episodes entries are nearly blow by blow accounts. And they give away all the jokes.--DooMDrat 09:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Grue 19:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into one episode guide. bob rulz 04:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and possibly condense to season-wide summaries. So little happens in any given episode that per-episode descriptions are a little pointless. Should be pointed out, however, that as far as Google tells me, these pages is not copyvio--there ARE no other RvB episode guides on the Internet, except for copies of these pages. (Old ones too--they don't reflect my Apr 2nd cleanups.) Delete. Have just discovered full episode transcripts at http://rvb.chrismarks.net/. That, plus the new season-by-season summaries on the main article, is enough to change my vote. Marblespire 02:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As far as I can tell, this information is not widely available, and I can personally testify that most of the info here is original and not a cut-and-paste job. NOTE: While I'd be fine with a merge and slight condensation of the episode summaries (although EP 49 is the only one that seems like problematic to me), I think too much deletion (such as reducing it all to a general season by season account) would be going too far. Because RvB is broken up into so many small episodes, it's good to have information as to what happens in each individual episode so you know what you've missed if you don't have the entire set (which alot of people don't). Someone's already streamlined the descriptions considerably, I think it's fine the way it stands. Joylock 2:00, 15 April 2005.
• Keep The precedent for episode guides/lists is well established. It serves no purpose to strip an episode “guide” down to an episode “list” as a list of titles is virtually useless information, while a guide can provide useful encyclopedic information. Miros 9:25, 16 April 2005
  • Comment Also, some web cartoons such as the Homestar Runner set have entire articles devoted to single characters. If that doesnt qualify as fancruft, then I dont see how an "episode guide" for this web series can, considering everything else is rolled into one article. Miros
    • Comment Some would and have argued that those articles completely qualify as worth deleting. The standard should be better then crappy unneeded articles, it should whether or not it is actually encyclopedic.--TheGrza 19:28, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree, it's easy to be excessive with things like this. But I would also argue that it does have some value, and so long as it's confined to a relatively small number of pages, it does more good than harm. And as far as the articles being needed or unneeded, I see that as a poor way of looking at things. There are plenty of legit articles on wikipedia that nobody needs but there are plenty of articles that people find useful. I certainly think that this has the potential to be useful to some people for some of the good reasons people have already pointed out. And as long as it's useful to some, and harmless to everyone else (since we are talking about 3 total articles here), the obvious greater benefit is to keep it. Without it, there is no benefit to anybody. With it, there is no harm, and benefit to some. Miros 20:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there are quite a few episode guides on Wikipedia... Soemone could merge these into one article but personally I think the article would be a bit too long however I suppose all it would need is a good TOC. -- Lochaber 09:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, reasons stated. Google "Red vs Blue" or "redvsblue" and you'll see how notable this is.-LtNOWIS 15:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It's a sad, sad day that reflects the fundamental flaws of Wikipedia when a amateur web comic about a video game made by a couple of fanboys gets four pages of fancruft, while a perfectly legitimate art movement THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS IN REAL FRICKIN' LIFE gets VFD out of existence just because there aren't thousands of rabid fanboys on the internet smearing it all around. Grza, I feel your pain. 166.666.666.011.
  • Comment Just because some of your legit content got VfD'd (wrongfully or otherwise) does not mean you should go on a crusade against whatever content you feel you can blast out of existance. I'm sorry about that, it sounds like it shouldnt have happened, but this is a community, and retribution isn't very neighborly... Miros 12:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment RvB is more than just "a amateur web comic about a video game made by a couple of fanboys". It is an example of machinima, an emerging artform if ever there was one. If anything it gave machinima new direction, showing that episode based series are more successful than singular long movies. It also gave a lot more exposure to machinima. Some of the people behind RvB have television production experience. Its not just 'fanboys' standing around recording themselves ingame going "bang bang you're dead stooopid! Dur hur hur!". Hell, the people behind the series aren't even very good at the games.--DooMDrat 18:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• It's not really "about" Halo, certainly not as much asM*A*S*H was about the Korean War. Yeah, they'll mock the genre and the absurdities of the environments from time to time, but it really is about characters and plots, not satire. Also, it's not as "amateur" as a lot of legitimate works of art. They sell DVDs and merchandise, and make people pay to see the archive. But, I understand your frustration. I was pretty sad when I found the Star Destroyer articles got merged. If you're sad about something getting sub-optimal treatment on Wikipedia, you're perfectly free to start you're own wiki site, like Star Wars fans did.-LtNOWIS 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm assume that's true, and I'll conceed that RvB is professional made. I'll even let it be said that it's quality-comparable to mainstream TV shows (certainly, the resolution is higher). Because the point remains that excessive coverage of it is still excessive. Take the Seinfeld page. A brief description about the show, the stars, and the general impact on pop culture. That's all there is. That's all that's needed. That's all there should be. Do we really need to know Kramer's favorite blend of cigar, all of Jerry's personal issues, or what a friggin Soup Nazi is? Remember, compare African art to La La, and see the fundamental flaw in Wikipedia's design. 166.666.666.011

• Well, your point now looks a whole lot more valid. But the fact of the matter is, people care more about some stuff than others, and people mostly write about stuff they know/care about. Maybe nerds, fans, and gamers are overrepresented online, but nothing stops anyone from expanding neglected topics. Furthermore, more is simply a lot better than less, when it comes to content. Despite this flaw and others, Wikipedia is still the best encyclopedia we've got, and it's free. -LtNOWIS 21:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I may comment, that's precisely the point. The encyclopdia is in as good as shape as it is because people have fought to keep this fancruft out, to a large extent. An article describing the show, fine, but the actual article of Red Vs. Blue along with three seperately huge episode guides goes too far.--TheGrza 21:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to totally disagree with anonymous. Take Seinfeld, for example. There IS an article about the Soup Nazi, and I believe that it is perfectly appropriate. The phrase was huge back in the 90's. It's more than just mere "pop culture". It's hard to put into words, but it's like it's become part of our society's collective social dialogue. Also, without the dedicated article to Cosmo Kramer, I would have never learned that he was based on a real guy. Sure, that info might not save anyone's life or bring them enlightenment or cure cancer or get them to vote for the right candidate or get involved in the right social issues, but it is interesting and informative and not hurting anyone. If you think an article is poorly written with embarassing or unprofessional grammer or outright lies, you can always edit it. As LtNOWIS said, nothing stops you from expanding neglected topics you think are worthwhile. But if you want to actually delete topics because you think that the information in an article is just "useless", than you might just be imposing your own POV on something you don't know all that much about. Who's to say Seinfeld is any less worthy of coverage than Gödel's incompleteness theorem? Both provide information that is useful to different types of people. RvB isn't some vanity page about some brief animation a bunch of neighborhood kids cooked up in their basement for their friends. It's not a neighborhood cafe frequented by at most three dozen people. It's a professionally made piece of media with a HUGE following on the internet numbering on the hundreds of thousands. Joylock 12:00, Apr 21, 2005.

Also, as far as Wikipedia standards go, the article on Red vs. Blue is very restrained, very conservative. All the information on the show is merged into one single article that just gives a brief summary of the story and a couple paragraphs for each character, which is not unreasonable seeing as how the show so heavily revolves around the characters. Compare that to, say, the Futurama article that has information about the show's fictional politics, religion, and seperate articles for each character. Joylock 12:00, Apr 21, 2005.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ren & Stimpy Syndrome

Interesting syndrome, but I was unable to find any evidence on the web of it being used. Rad Racer 14:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research (or ranting, anyway). —tregoweth 04:05, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this syndrome could catch on. I also think it is valuable information. --TheSamurai 02:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, it's still just a neologism/original research, though... --Tydaj 23:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "could" does not mean we should have it. Fuzheado | Talk 03:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, original research. --InShaneee 19:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. --Anonymous Cow 01:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, orig. research. Dave the Red (talk) 02:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and opinion. I happen to agree that "Ren and Stimpy" stunk on ice after Kricfalusi left, but a syndrome? Uh-uh. - Lucky 6.9 04:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 07:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Lucky. Mgm|^(talk) 07:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Footnote, under "jump the shark". Iconoclast 10:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Errr..? This has already been deleted.. I didn't get a chance to read it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, move, and cleanup. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Road House

Page is a review of Road House and is more of a review than a description of the film. Also talks about how the writer watched a bootleg of the movie and some questionable quotes. I think at a minimum this page should be edited down or deleted all together. Steve Eifert 10:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep both films deserve the same treatment as all the other films in the Wikipedia. Serious re-writing needs to be done, sure, but keep none the less. Besides that, I liked the more recent of the two... :P Dismas 20:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. I have also heard this movie referenced by Ron White in his stand-up acts on the Blue Colar Comedy Tour. The reference was made in his rant about bouncers in a New York bar. He stated that the bouncers are the type of people who watch this movie while touching themselves (eg masturbating). Zscout370 19:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Road House (film). There is a play with the same name. This page should be a disambig that sorts those out. There are many uses of road house, roadhouse, and road-house that could be added and create more of a need for a disambig page here. Vegaswikian 05:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are also numerous buildings named this, so we need a disamb too. Zscout370 12:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move, make disamb, and cleanup as per Vagaswikian. Mgm|^(talk) 07:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Move, make disamb, and cleanup as above. 23skidoo 13:42, 14 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. CDC (talk) 22:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert Gagnon

Non-notable, probably about the author. Bart133 (t) 02:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke by anon, one of a series. Andrewa 02:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone has seriously underestimated the level of achievement necessary to be included in an encyclopedia. Average Earthman 13:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No doubt the same fellow involved in a number of articles here. Oh, well. Enjoy the five days. Delete as pure vanity. - Lucky 6.9 02:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Somehow, this would have been less annoying if it were funny. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stupid joke/vandalism. — Brim 09:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Firebug 01:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 15:58, 19 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. – ABCD 02:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rocking stoned

• Delete. Non-notable, few to none true google results. Eddyrichards 15:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC).
• Keep. Vfd by anon, vote not signed, voter has less than 100 edits. Voter not eligible to vote. Article stood 36 days unedited, unchallenged, without a single comment on the talk page. Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Rolling Stones. If it can be verified. RickK 04:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Ha. Ha. Ha. Delete. Soundguy99 07:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 07:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if verified. Delete if not. Dedalus, I think anons can vote as long as they give a solid reasoning. But that's just me. Mgm|^(talk) 07:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominating anon was Eddyrichards, not signed in (or possibly not registered yet). —Korath (Talk) 09:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Oh and yeah, anons can nominate. But Dedalus is from the Dutch 'pedia which may (or may not) have different rules. Radiant_* 08:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Anonymous users can nominate and can vote, but by the English-language Wikipedia's policies, the admin resolving the VfD will typically discount votes from anons; however, valid substantiated arguments from anons can still override larger numbers of less-validly-supported votes from registered users. Barno 19:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Celebrate tomorrow the Fiftieth Day in history of Rocking stoned

And then it will definitely fall in the category Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense (BJAODN) - in which it had been placed on day 1. Is Eddy family of Keith? At least one guy could laugh about it. I shouldn't have added [[Category:BJAODN]] at the end of the article as Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense falls in another Category, that is Bad jokes and other undeleted nonsense. Some guys called it a hoax which I do believe to be a compliment in this case. Thanks! Gebruiker:Dedalus 08:26, 15 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. CDC (talk) 23:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rudgeway

non-notable miniscule village without a filling station... Please delete asap. Refdoc 00:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme keep all real places. RickK 00:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep. If this one goes I can easily find you 2,500 other articles on villages equally un-noteworthy from the UK alone - and many more from other countries. Grutness|^hello? 03:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Firebug 01:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Searched for it and it has a lot of advertisements for business in that certain area. --Anonymous Cow 01:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real places. Dave the Red (talk) 02:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Incidentally, should this be moved to Rudgeway, England or something of that nature? Meelar (talk) 02:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there's another Rudgeway somewhere, then Rudgeway, Countyname would be the format, I believe. But if there isn't, it's fine as it is. Grutness|^hello?
• Keep Notable english village. I wonder if it has a school? Klonimus 05:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like it has a school as a search for "Rudgeway school" resulted in 0 hits. It seems likely the kids are educated in Alveston, which is a mile or so up the road. Thryduulf 15:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a real place and possibly interesting to someone. Besides we have hordes of articles on American villages, so British ones should be just as noteworthy. Mgm|^(talk) 07:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per all keep votes above. Samaritan 10:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. Having scoured Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Informative to try to find a reason to delete this, I couldn't find one. --Angr/_comhrá 12:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep real places" is a very well established principle. Kappa 21:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Although it is erroneously stated, since whenever I've enquired whether that includes the area behind the shed in my back garden, no-one espousing that maxim has yet answered in the affirmative, despite it unequivocally being a member of "all real places". Capitalistroadster's rationale below is far more indicative of the actual principle than "all real places" is. Uncle G 11:45, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
      • I guess in this case it means "keep all settlements". Kappa 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, can be expanded. If my planned trip this weekend falls through, then I might even be able to take some photos of it (its about an hour north of where I live). The map shows it has a church which might have an interesting history, and I'm sure the decine in the A38 after construction of the M5 motorway must have impacted the village. Thryduulf 15:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That must put you in Wiltshire or Dorset, then. Grutness|^hello?
    • Cheddar in Somerset actually. It wont be quite an hour, but as I work on about 35-45 minutes to J16 of the M5 and its a few miles up the A38 from there, an hour is a nice round approximately accurate figure. Thryduulf 15:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real place with community of interest. Capitalistroadster 02:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All villages. Oliver Chettle 23:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FroggyMoore 15:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shoot the messenger

A phrase. I don't see any encyclopedic potential, and it doesn't look very useful for Wiktionary. Kappa 01:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary: not as the phrase, but a note in the wiktionary:shoot and wiktionary:messenger entries. Neutrality^talk 04:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not encyclopedic, and not a useful definition Terrace4 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. Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sexual addictions

Unreferenced POV fork of Hypersexuality, which Sexual addiction is already a redirect to. Delete and make a redirect to Hypersexuality to discourage recreation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge the section on addiction programs, with some editing for NPOV, and internal/external links, into Hypersexuality, and add a new section on views of sex addiction to Hypersexuality as well. Don't just delete; the term gets over 3 million hits on Google (they're relevant; look at the first page of hits). DDerby 09:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a term someone might search for, which is why I think that Sexual addictions should, like Sexual addiction, point to Hypersexuality. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, no. Hypersexuality is a distinct medical condition, "sex addiction" is a questionable and controversial concept, with a question-begging name. Regarding this article: move to sexual addiction, and rewrite for NPOV. On re-reading the article: Delete -- it's unsalvageable twaddle from the bottom of the pop-psychology barrel. -- Karada 13:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The section on addction programs is salveagable, along with the links, and could either be merged or flesh out a new stub at sexual addiction. DDerby 18:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete FroggyMoore 16:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Donohoe

Not only is this article probably a copyvio (from a book probably), but I did a google search...tried every configuration of his name and Irish runner and I found nothing. So notability too. --Woohookitty 03:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most probably taken from the journal of the The O'Donoghue Society (issue 22, April 2005, the story entitled "The O’Donoghue Cup – the story of an athlete"). I've contacted them to find out whether it is their text, and if so, whether they'd license it under the GFDL. Lupo 07:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, wikipedia is not a memorial, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 07:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of whether permission is granted to use the text. The O'Donoghue Cup is a football/soccer, not a running, cup created in '53, see [2] so the article may be a hoax. DDerby 09:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Extremely notable individual. Google is not the be-All and End-all.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Extremely notable" in what sense? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. He might be notable, but then its a copyvio so it's still a delete. It reads just like a ripoff from a book. --Woohookitty 19:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible copyvio. The article is named "Donohoe", then lists alternative spellings, one of which is used in the next line. Clearly lifted from somewhere. --bainer 07:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography on Imperial Japan and its exterior provinces

Not a bad bibliography, but Wikipedia is not a library database. Move to Talk:Empire of Japan and delete. Neutrality^talk 04:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or references. RickK 04:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a links mirror. Megan1967 07:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nice and in-depth but serves little purpose for Wikipedia. Plus it needs massive tidying up. Delete. Stombs 10:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of References on Imperial Japan. No need ot destroy information. Klonimus 15:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well,well.if certain why this isn t no database or any similar,but i putting these references for if any interest,decided to ampled any particular theme,of japanese empire,can to see these historic titles why for supposelly some certain libraires poses.if for historical porposes too.

if only refference pourpose only.the unique section why i deleting , if reffering at U.S. and Japanese influence zone clash,debt at why this having enormous this bibliography,i when putting this section if for why this is other cause for U.S.-Japanese frictions in pacific area(United States Guam island and others american islands versus Japanese held Micronesia(south pacific mandate)and the clash of strategical commercial routes,etc.but still your importance i decided to delete this.

reiterrally these refferences if for interest,i knowed perfectly why any common persons no regulary used this,but if acase exist any interest can to ampled knowledge respect of any topic relationed.

one real thing if why reffering at Empire of Japan general bibliography ,knowed why stay disorder,but i having to organized and subdivided in themes ad topics.

well,if still decided to delete,i respect your decision,but i only liked to present this for ampled the know at possibly interest in topic one theme very scarcy in any type of source,one reality why know perfectly...

Wlad K.

• Delete While I personally think that good long bibliographies would be a good thing for Wikipedia, I think that they should be incorporated into articles. A major flaw of this bibliography is that the most recent work, as far as I can tell, is from 1943. I assume that many of these works have been superseded. Also a great deal has happened in Japan since then. Dsmdgold 18:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect I think this should be up someplace, like at the end of an article on Japan, but does not deserve an article in itself. Dr Ingel 01:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia has eight List of Pokémon entries. Why is a scholarly bibliography of the single most important belligerent state in Asia during the last century (or two or three) less valuable than eight lists of fictitious creatures? This bibliography shows a snapshot of the views of the Japanese empire at a time when Britain, the U.S., China and other countries were at war with it. It is well organized and has the potential to become a valuable ancillary to the Empire of Japan article, which it exceeds in length. Fg2 01:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with, variously, Empire of Japan, History of Japan, Geography of Japan, Taiwan, Manchukuo, and so on. 'References' sections at the bottom of pages are perfect for this. Although I wouldn't want to be the one to have to sift through all this. --bainer 07:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Bainer... merge into various articles, and I don't really see the point in making this a redirect anywhere as an unlikely search term. Radiant_* 08:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please consider this an important resource for all the pages being listed at User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan. The coverage of this area is increasing rapidly. It is facile to say that this bibliography could easily be merged appropriately into those articles, most of which are expanding. Charles Matthews 16:28, 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. – ABCD 02:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Markenration Production

Five Google hits for "Markenration Production" and two for "Markenration Productions". RickK 04:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CDC (talk) 05:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN K1Bond007 23:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fru fra

"(the term) Fru fra is not used in many schools nation wide. only one is certain to use it currently." Need I say more? Grutness|^hello? 05:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. Klonimus 05:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Country-centric too... which nation? Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Airports of Vermont

Entry has no data and is a basically already in place with Category:Airports of Vermont. This is the only state with an entry like this. Vegaswikian 05:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete empty Burgundavia 06:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I've got no problem with lists, but empty ones should be deleted. To the creator: please find some items to list before creating the article. Mgm|^(talk) 07:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete empty lists Dsmdgold 08:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. There appear to be a good deal of minor airfields in Vermont. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There is already a List of non-commercial North American airports where minor airports are listed. Are Category:heliports and seaplane base considered airports? There were quite a few of those in the referenced list. Vegaswikian 20:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for consistency. Category will cover for it. Radiant_* 14:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete only because it is empty. In general, Lists and Categories serve different purposes, and should be kept. RickK 18:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:14 (UTC)

InterNutter

Somebodies quake id. Was up for vfd in Arpil but attracted no attention, delete--nixie 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - embarassing that this nonsense has been hanging around since April - thanks for catching it. CDC (talk) 01:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It hasn't. You deleted an article about a female author on 2005-04-21. This article was created on 2005-06-24 about a male games player. Uncle G June 28, 2005 12:50 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons. -Splash 01:53, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, oh my ... Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly vanity. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey rich

A singing massage therapist, non-encyclopedie, delete --nixie 06:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not enclyclopedic material. Mgm|^(talk) 07:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, improperly capitalized title, non-notable person, and the article reads like spam. --Idont Havaname 03:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:49, 18 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. CDC (talk) 23:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Airports of the United States

Currently empty. IMHO, lists only make sense to keep when they are not duplicative of a category Burgundavia 06:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Empty lists Dsmdgold 08:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No content, no place here. Stombs 10:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and fix. See the page List of airports. It links to several pages of the form "Airports of Country X." Whoever made these pages put content in for all but the U.S., and for that page preferred to direct the reader to Category: Airports of the United States. The trouble is that this category is broken into airports by state, so you don't get the listing even here. We have the data; it just wants centralization. Shimmin 12:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, the article is currently empty. Notice I am not listing those lists which have content. I have also left this long enough to get content and it hasn't. Burgundavia 15:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this page and direct the US airports link on List of airports to the appropriate category. Unless somebody is willing to build a list and add in the airport codes, I don't see a reason to keep the current page. — RJH 16:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Link was changed to category. Vegaswikian 17:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vegaswikian 17:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's empty. RickK 18:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's empty. K1Bond007 23:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Derek Cheater

Yet another nonsensical article written on the talk page (compare Talk:Specie paradox, Talk:Single-vowel alphabet, Talk:New York conspiracy theory). Unlike the first two (which I've listed for speedy deletion), this one might have an ounce of relevance to reality that would cause people to vote to merge. Maybe. But I say delete. -- Perey 06:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, a stub on a Talk page. Megan1967 07:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I suspect it's nothing more than an attack page. Do all these talk page articles come from the same person? Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, they all come from (multiple) anonymous IPs. The person or people behind Talk:Specie paradox have also done assorted vandalisms, reverted some of them, and commented on the VfD for Talk:New York conspiracy theory to point out this page and Talk:Single-vowel alphabet! -- Perey 15:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mwanner 12:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Talk pages which have no accompanying article pages should be speedy deleted. RickK 18:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - 68.72.118.244 21:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I added a Patent Nonsense header to the page. Firebug 03:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have speedied this, except that since it's already being voted on here, I'll let it run its course. Accordingly, I removed Firebug's header.-gadfium 09:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Accordingly I have edited the article to read the following: "Derek Cheater is a derogatory nickname for New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter." IMO, it still should be removed. First of all, it is an orphaned Talk page. Secondly, this nickname doesn't have enough currency to deserve a redirect, much less a page of its own. Google shows only 117 hits. Compare to derisive Bush nicknames Commander Codpiece and Whistle Ass each of which shows well over a thousand hits and both of which the consensus on WP:RFD was to delete rather than redirect to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. Firebug 10:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, crap like this should be speedied, Bluemoose 15:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Should have been speedied for having no parent article, but might as well leave it until 06:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) now that it's been listed here, then delete. Niteowlneils 04:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - 68.72.114.32 21:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - 68.23.101.9 04:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: no argument here

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oral sex (no pictures)

Not a fork, just an autocensored version of Oral sex, database cruft without encyclopedic merit. Gmaxwell 06:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Original article says something like: "If you don't want images, turn them off on your browser". Wikipedia isn't censored. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • • Oops. I meant delete of course. You may not call it a fork, but duplicating articles with the aim to autocensor is still forking. Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the original warning said "This article contains photographs of sex acts. For a version without photographs, see Oral sex (no pictures)." before Gmaxwell vandalized Template:Photo warning. Keep, per precedent at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). —Korath (Talk) 10:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Vandalized? That is a little rude. I justified my changes in my edit summary, and my edits were in good faith. Abu Ghraib didn't orignally use Template:Photo warning, but rather Template:Morbid warning, which is the same as the current Photo warning, but it was deleted. The consensus was that the Abu Ghraib article would not use a template for its link to the censored version. A primary argument was that the existance of the template would encourage the creation of other censored articles. I did not realize that the link in Abu Ghraib had been replaced with the template in violation of that decision. --Gmaxwell 14:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • See Template talk:Photo warning. See also WP:TFD, which is currently chock-full of the uselessness you edited the template into. If you want something gone, you nominate it for deletion; you don't try to ruin it and sit back and wait for someone else to nominate it. —Korath (Talk) 15:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Would you please discontinue your overt hostility towards me, I'd prefer a civil discussion. I think it is probably useful to have a warning of the explicit nature of such pages, and I believe there was such a warning on on the article before that template was used. I was not attempting to ruin it so that it would be deleted but rather, I made two changes which I believed would improve it. I changed the wording to reduce a POV slant, and I removed the no pictures link because disabling images is the only sure way to not see naked pictures. I'm well aware of the TFD page, and would have nominated it myself if I felt that was clearly the best path at this time. --Gmaxwell 15:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Precedent disallows forks, even for censorship. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a fork. Look at the article source. —Korath (Talk) 10:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Turning off pictures is too technical for most users to accomplish. DDerby 09:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There was a proposed addition to mediawiki in the past to provide a navigation button to disable images easily (eh, well I can't find the cite, but other people tell me I am remembering correctly). It was overwhelmingly denied. The process of creating a (no pictures) version of Oral sex is a substantially POV pushing action because it says that the encyclopedia has an opinion of what content is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. I would support an easy to use hide image button in the main navigation, but the creation of special no images pages is harmful (encourages forking and censorship, since the *text* is explicit as well so a Oral sex (no thought crime) is the obvious next step. I also oppose the semi-fork as it cruds the database, and because it encourages POV pushing in links (changing links to the censored version)). Also the (no pictures) version would be a huge target for vandalism, as someone could easily stick a shocking picture at the top and really surprise people who though they were safe. Finally, since it is not possible to edit Oral sex without looking at the pictures, we are effectively telling people that don't want to see nudies that we don't want them editing wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 15:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per DDerby. I wouldn't know how to turn off pictures in my browser. And as long as we've got the proper Oral Sex article as well, there's no real censorship. P Ingerson 09:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's only one picture anyway and the article itself is pretty explicit without it. Robinoke 10:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary duplication of content already at another article. --Angr/_comhrá 11:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary duplication. Anyone who would be offended by the photos would be offended by the text. How many other articles with nude photos would have to be duplicated if we go this route? Mwanner 12:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. Comment: The reason anyone would want this is not to prevent themselves from being offended, but so that it is safe to view in a public or semi-public place (school, library, work, at home with young children or paranoid parents). And while people can browse with images off, some people may not know how to, and in any case it's inconvenient. On the other hand, having it for an individual article is an ugly hack and perhaps bad precedent. I personally think there should be an option when browsing Wikipedia to not view any images inline, which would be much cleaner (no pun intended) and more effective. Nickptar 12:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary duplication. Keeping images that may seem objectionable to some seems to be policy, see talk:autofellatio, image polls and discussion--nixie 13:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete is it me, or have the puritans started coming out in droves? Burgundavia 15:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Not useful. I favour deleting this page, as well as removing the photo from Oral sex (at minimum, changing it into a link). This is an encyclopedia; such explicit images do not belong here. Does any other encyclopedia prominently feature similar material? Should goatse.cx contain the infamous "hello.jpg" image? - Mike Rosoft 15:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid removing the photos from Oral sex won't ever get consensus; I, for one, would oppose, and the very existence of this vfd shows that people still want to shove these pictures in people's faces whether they want to see them or not. See also Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote. —Korath (Talk) 15:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, not a fork because of the way it's done, could be replaced with a software option like the hide/show for tables of contents. --SPUI (talk) 16:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Right which is why I pointed out in the VFD that it's not technically a fork... although the practice encourages forking as now Woman on top sex position (no pictures) which is actually a fork, and even fails to link back to the orignal and is biased in what pictures it removes. Creating no pictures links for some articles and not others is POV. People who want a no pictures option need to start a vote for that feature. --Gmaxwell 16:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • End-user image suppression is currently on hold because of technical and design problems. Articles like this, where someone has identified a problem and gone to the trouble of fixing it, and has done so without forking, should be kept as stopgap measures until the software solution is in place. (And if you nominate the fork or point me at its vfd, I'll be the first to vote delete.) —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) (I will in fact nominate Woman on top sex position (no pictures) for deletion myself; I was replying to an earlier version of your comment. —Korath (Talk) 16:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC))
• Keep delete this article, but I'd support a no-pictures option - not for censorship reasons - but to help those of us addicted enough to browse (and edit) WP over GPRS and/or Wireless Application Protocol. If someone starts or finds such a proposal please could they put a link on my talk page, thanks. Thryduulf 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You might want to change your vote, because you can't actually edit the article from the no pictures page. --Gmaxwell 16:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Section edit links work just fine. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • vote changed to what I acutally meant to write (note to self: don't try to edit WP while completely frustrated at printers refusing to work). Thryduulf 16:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. RickK 18:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quote from the Wikipedia:Schools' FAQ "Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored." Dave the Red (talk) 19:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: My suggestion is that on the main Oral Sex page, we can provide a link to the photo in question, just like what we have done in the autofelatio page. Zscout370 19:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. --cesarb 21:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Fork. K1Bond007 23:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:WIN censored for the protection of minors. Radiant_* 08:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the idea makes my skin crawl. Can anyone in his or her right mind -- even a pitchfork-wielding peasant -- seriously go to a page on "Oral sex" in an illustrated encyclopedia and not expect an illustration? — Xiong熊talk 09:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:08, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. --Carnildo 18:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 17:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Destroy. Dmn / Դմն 19:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov fork! RustyCale 00:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Wmahan. 14:42, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. And I'm genuinely offended that anyone would compare depictions of oral sex to depictions of prisoners being tortured—I think it takes a pretty skewed value system to find them both equally distasteful. Perhaps I should create a fork of this VfD page so I don't have to look at the comment that offended me. Postdlf 15:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I am not sure how thinking the pictures are inappropriate is in anyway more POV than saying tht they are not. However, I do see it as something of a fork unless the content updates in both locations with a single edit, and even this its ugly. MediaWiki should support some sort of navagation bar to turn them off, though from the comments above that does not look likley. Dalf | Talk 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • NPOV requires us not to consider the issue of "appropriateness" at all—only how relevant and informative it is to the article. Postdlf 02:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Quixotic keep, although I would prefer linking even more still. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV — Davenbelle 11:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I find it most disturbing that Cool Hand Luke has responded to this VfD by changing the inlined image on the Oral sex page to a link. This in my opinion is blatantly against the sense expressed by most of those who have voted to delete the bowdlerized page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong concur with Tony Sidaway. I am at work at the moment, and so viewing the Oral sex article would not be apropriate, but this is no reason to remove pictures - I would expect it to have pictures and thus not be suitable for work. If I want to read about sex-related topics then I can do that at home. Tony, if you haven't done already please revert (do so in my name and/or cite this comment if you want). Thryduulf 10:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I find it more disturbing that Gmaxwell has, several times, improperly orphaned this page (both via the template, and removing the template from Oral sex). Not to mention all the ignorant "fork" votes, none of which have grasped the fact this is not a fork by any reasonable definition of the word. Entire contents below. —Korath (Talk) 13:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

{{:Oral sex|suppress image=-5px|mWf={|mWb=}</font></div><div class="boilerplate metadata" id="violence" style="background: #dff; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px">''This is a version of the article which does not include images. For the complete version of this article see [[Oral Sex]].''</div><font color=white>}}

<!--To edit this page, you must edit the article with pictures at [[Oral Sex]] or use section editing. This page without pictures is derived from "Oral Sex" and does not need to be edited every time the main article is.-->

It is a second article on the subject of oral sex. It is based on the article oral sex. It is not exactly the same as the article oral sex. Therefore, it is a fork of the original article. --Carnildo 18:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. It transcludes oral sex. Any modification to oral sex will also be reflected in this article. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not a 'fork'. Nickptar 20:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • The only time I edited Oral Sex was after this page was voted Delete here and I'd spoken to an administrator about archiving the discussion. Had it been my intention to orphan it in bad faith, I would have not let it sit for a week. My edit to the template was made without complete understanding of the template, and without realizing it was in use elseware because I was in the middle of doing RC patrol. For that I am sorry. I have left it alone since that discussion. I think it is wrong to force decisions on articles by deleting their content via TFD and IFD, or to hide something that should be deleted by removing a link. As far as the fork issue, I was clear in the nomination that it is not a true fork. ... I imagine those voting delete because it is a fork voted that way because it is a fork in spirit if not technically--Gmaxwell 20:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Korath. Gmaxwell's behavior could be interpreted as somewhat trollish, and I am sure that isn't the impression he wants to give. I hope he will reconsider his actions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I would to suggest, without the intention of offending, that you have failed to completely investigate the timeline of the events here before drawing your conclusion. I ran across the article on recent changes, saw the template directing to the no pictures version. I found the previously TFDed morbid photo warning template (by searching for the content of the template to figure out how it worked) and saw that it was deleted because (in part) it encouraged making forks/quasi forks. I adjusted the template to fit that concern (and did not remove it because I thought the warning was useful on the page). I then noticed that the Oral Sex (no pictures) page was actually a real page (I had previously thought it was a sideeffect for the template). I put it up for VFD. I was then told that the prisoner abuse used the template too... I'd missed that because when morbid warning was TFDed it was decided not to use a template by rather to include the text in the article. After that point I allowed the template to be reverted and left it alone. After this articles VFD timer expired with a clear delete decision, I talked to an admin about closing the VFD and I went and removed the template from the Oral Sex page. I presume this VFD has yet to be closed and archived because the debate restarted today after I yanked the template last night. After removing the template from Oral sex, I went to see if anything else was still using it, and then followed the link to the prisoner abuse article to read up on the discussion there.. After being confused by the history page, I realized that it was a copyright violation and followed the procedure for reporting it. In further discussion with Korath, I have discovered that it's possible to fix the copyright issue without removing the page... but I have to impliment that change because I am concerned by the fact that my intentions are being questioned. --Gmaxwell 20:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, firstly I'm sorry if I've misrepresented what you did. Secondly, I've no idea what you did or what state the whole silly thing is in now--which templates exist or do not exist, or whatever. Thirdly couldn't we just revert the whole silly thing to the way it was a week or two ago and pretend it never happened? This is getting embarrassing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:12, 21 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 CDC (talk) 23:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Phipps

Non-notable, vanity article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm moving the VfD notice to the top of the page, so it it more noticable. --Jonathan Christensen 07:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dsmdgold 08:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Robinoke 10:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've seen vanity pieces before and they are often people wanting self-promotion for having done something non-notable. This doesn't even get that far. Delete. Stombs 10:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable CustardJack 00:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 02:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Khaw Kim Siang

Incomplete nomination by User:Casito, who asserts this is vanity. No vote from me as yet. Radiant_* 08:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently speedied. Talk page reads, "Wikipedia is not a place for some stupid articles..." Radiant_* 11:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crusader warfare

Tagged for speedy deletion because "patent nonsense. This is such drivel - there are many, many better contributions about military. The name comes from bad journalism." It's not patent nonsense, because I understand it. The other things don't make it a speedy candidate. No vote. Kappa 07:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete DDerby 09:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-topic, reads like something out of a game manual. - Mustafaa 10:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Redirect to Crusades. Radiant_* 14:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing here worth adding to the Crusades article. Mwanner 11:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would add nothing to Crusades. - Jpo 12:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article tries to generalise from certain historical events. It is simply inept sociology, not factual.--Doc Glasgow 14:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. I originally put {{speedy}} on it. Pavel Vozenilek 18:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and create redirect to Crusades - no need to save this in the edit history. Dsmdgold 19:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Organization of Contents by Themes

This seems like a list of random book contents. A useless list that violates naming conventions. DDerby 08:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this was a good idea in principle, but it may have been abandoned. Literary criticism identifies various common themes, and it would be a good idea to list these themes, explain them briefly and give examples. Also it might be worth trying to categorize as many works of fiction as possible by theme, and a page like this would be a useful resource on the way to doing that. Kappa 09:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a promising idea; what I saw there didn't come anywhere near usefulness, and we need to avoid mere useless lists - your suggestion avoids that well. Perhaps move to Literary themes. DDerby 09:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree and would be more than happy to help with the project. Robinoke 10:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe make each theme a category? RickK 18:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not believe a thematic index of world literature could be maintained in that form. Phils 19:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Different University professors (usually from different countries) will always have different names for themes that they'll catagorize books in. Also if you were to include every theme, the division between a major and a minor theme is a gray area, and pretty much every book would have to be repeated under the Shakespearian themes of Romance, Comedy, Tragedy, and History, as well as all the other themes that would be listed here. RickGriffin 22:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimson Vengeance

"Crimson Vengeance was the first film produced by the Community Christian School class of 2006." Says it all really. Unverifiable, non-notable, and most probably nonsense. Xezbeth 09:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 09:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Also, article talks in paste tense on future event. Likely hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Stombs 10:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mwanner 11:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think the article is trying to claim that the film came out in the future, I think it's saying Class of 2006, which is the year that the class graudates (from elementary, junior or high school, it isn't clear). Still, it's an amateur kids' film, and therefore nn. Delete. RickK 18:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what RickK said. Wmahan. 23:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mahabon

A password to the Free Mason's lodge. I think this is nonencyclopedic, perhaps the definition (which is not here) ought to go on Wiktionary, but this ought to be deleted. Sjakkalle 09:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not even a dic def as the meaning isn't given. IF anything can be verified it can be merged into an article on Freemasonry. Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 10:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Svansven

"Svansven is a website with pictures and stories about one certain groups of teenagers living in the city of Stavanger, Norway." Its main page hit counter, starting almost exactly two years ago, shows 11579 visits, or just shy of 16 per day on average. It is the top Google result for "Svansven," but there are very few. Samaritan 11:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to norwegianwiki and then VfD it over there. Norwiki is much better able to figure out if this should be deleted. Klonimus 16:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, about as non-notable as it gets, and don't foist this off on no: unless it's actually written in Norwegian. —Korath (Talk) 01:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN website. Radiant_* 08:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crosssword Empire

• Delete. Non-existant book. Zero Google hits. Mwanner 11:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phils 19:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 69.134.128.54 07:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has ~20 edits, nearly all of which to this article or VfD.
    • I kept miss-spelling in the VfD and adding to the article.
      • Says User:69.134.128.54
        • I am now BKY1701
• Delete, sounds like vanity on fanfic. Radiant_* 08:08, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. 207.118.97.125 08:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit
    • So?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crosssword

Delete. See Crosssword Empire. Apparently based on a non-existent book-- zero Google hits. Mwanner 11:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Crossword as a possible mispelling. Redirects are easy and cheap. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no misspelling involved: as is explained on Crosssword, its really "Cross-Sword". Mwanner 17:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's not Cross-Sword, it's only used that way to keep from being thought of as "cross word". If you want to see the "book"; there is none; it's an on going thing. See http://revolutiong.myfreebb.com/viewforum.php?f=10 for info.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ladder match

No relevant purpose, total fancruft, very short, nothing useful.

Nobody cares. 193.63.168.208 11:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: I suggest the same redirect as currently exists for Ladder Match.

Okay, I have added the redirect. Would someone make the decision to remove the delete? Shoaler 12:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and let grow to cover examples of famous ladder matches in history, and techniques of using the ladder, safety issues etc. Failing that, merge somewhere. Kappa 17:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, this is trivial wrestling cruft. Megan1967 07:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for now, can always be broken out if and when more content such as that suggested by Kappa is added. Radiant_* 08:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Kappa. -- Lochaber 17:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Bluemoose 20:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kenneth Lacy

Vanity, borderline nonsense, created by User:206.211.68.242 who has been vandalizing today's Feature Article. Jpo 12:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Feydey 18:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Swiftly. Phils 20:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedily. I don't think it refers to the former CIO of UPS. Wmahan. 23:18, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Gillen

I cannot verify this, sounds supsiciously like a hoax -- Ferkelparade π 12:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Neither can't I. Delete unless somebody does come up with verifiable evidence. Lupo 12:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Note: creator IP (134.226.1.136 is a known hoaxter. Lupo 13:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: known vandal. Check user history and this page - Pete C ^(talk) 15:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, although I did laugh pretty hard when I read it Foodmarket 17:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, not notable, vanity, and the anonymous author of that article vandalised my user page. Megan1967 07:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A boxing "superstar" in the 16th century? I don't think so. Wmahan. 23:10, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heier

Article about a Norwegian surname, not exactly encyclopedic material -- Ferkelparade π 12:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Of no particular interest. -- Egil 16:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: The article has been recreated multiple times since this last AfD, and for the time being, has been protected from recreation. Please see the talk page of the article for details. Thank you. --HappyCamper 02:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Forward Area

Appears to be band vanity, delete--nixie 13:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Woodson

Delete The page looks like it was merely a copy of William James Sidis with the name changed in the first sentence. I can find no reference to anyone named Kevin Woodson connected to Sidis, so I'm guessing this is someone's very poor attempt at a joke or a vanity page. -GamblinMonkey 13:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible hoax. Megan1967 07:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE: a really really bad attempt at vanity... or serial killer?! --Addama 20:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Truelove2005

• Strong Delete. This article is just promotional material, and if you see the talk page, you'll see that they actually try to copyright the article (a good, old-fashioned one too, not the gdfl). At any rate, I for one support articles about very, very minor films, bands and actors in the Wikipedia as long as they're real articles, not just promo. And for heaven's sakes, the movie hasn't even been made yet! Make the movie, write a real article, don't copyright it and I'll change my vote gladly. --Zantastik 03:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hn 04:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if possible. There have been a rash of these unmade student film articles swamping this site, so much so that I'm just about convinced that we're being hijacked. This has got to stop. - Lucky 6.9 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotional, the movie hasn't even been made yet! - Jersyko 14:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Xezbeth 14:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation. If the poster is not the copyright holder, then they have violated the holder's copyright. If they are the copyright holder, they have not released the information to the GFDL. RickK 18:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 07:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name Gill

• delete. wikipedia not genealogy tool. Also notability. Also, something makes me to think that this is a hoax. Mikkalai 14:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If an article is to be written on this topic, it should be Gill (surname), for consistency's sake, should address the name origin more generally, and should but no redirect b/c the information here was unsourced - I've been able to find no verification. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 18:10, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Delete, genealogycruft. Surname information goes to Wiktionary. RickK 18:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary is poorly watched, in comparison with wikipedia. You better not give anons such advices. Mikkalai 20:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep if verified, like Smith, and transwiki. . Kappa 21:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Unlike "smith" or Nick, the information is unverifiable. Mikkalai 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, geneology, cruft. Megan1967 07:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note, this is a sub-caste in India, whose members use it for a surname. Therefore, it is an encyclopedic topic. Neverthless, it is a copy of Gill (caste) and a WP:CP. -12.74.169.5 15:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sub-note, for a European equivalent, see Clan Donald. -12.74.169.5 16:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Heh, I knew it was notable and verifiable. Redirect it to Gill (caste) Kappa 16:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • copyvio anyway. I am very surprized my google search didn't show this site. Usually I always search for phrases in such cases, to eliminate copyvio on spot. Mikkalai 17:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Presumably it's copyvio of something in the book [3], which isn't on the web. Kappa 18:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • It is on the web: Just follow the link from the page you mention: click at "Alphabet G Clans" link, and you will get the exact copy of wikiarticle (actually, other way around) under GILL subsection. Mikkalai 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gainclone

An article about a piece of not that notable DIY audio equipment. -- Egil 12:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vegaswikian 06:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C.A.L.M.

No evidence of notability, promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "Sir! Advertisment on the horizon!" "Damn these adverts attacking the shores of Wikipedia! Open fire!" "Sir, torpedoes have no effect!" "Blast! Open the main bays! We'll have to send out the special weapon! Fire the Delete vote!" Sorry for the sarcasm, but I really think Wikipedia could do without these adverts eveywhere.

Merely info about an all volunteer, free clinic. Not an advertisement at all. Keep. - bstone 03:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• C.A.L.M. is a non-commercial, volunteer-run, free health care clinic which operates and functions in order to provide 100% free health care to those in need. It functions at the annual Rainbow Gatherings in the summers, also a non-commercial event. It could not be further from an advertisement. Please go to [4] CALM to check out CALM for yourself
  • I never said it was a commercial adverisement. (I called it a promotional and said that it didn't establish notability.) But Wikipedia is not a place to promote any organizations, whether commercial or not. - Mike Rosoft 21:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You seemingly know nothing about Rainbow Gatherings. By definition, they (the people who attend) are non-members of the largest non-organization in the world. (Stone)

• I'm still laughing at the first delete comment. I have to agree, too. Delete. Linuxbeak 22:36, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Rainbow Gathering or keep, assuming they are the main health care providers at a notable event like RGs. Kappa 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. Despite what others have said, these guys are pretty notable. They're crosslinked by a lot of alternate healing web sites, and have been written up in serious newspapers maybe a half-dozen times. It doesn't make sense to merge them with Rainbow Gathering because they do operate away from the annual gathering. I do suspect that they're simply another name for the collective that runs the Rainbow Gathering, but that bunch doesn't have an article to merge with. ---Isaac R 23:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Rainbow Gathering unless someone adds information on the group outside of that context, in which case, keep. Jonathunder 01:09, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
• Delete. According to the Declaration of W.A.L.L.A. (Wikipedians against Largely Lame Advertisements) this must not be left standing! Death! Death I say! ...yes I am being sarcastic... Master Thief Garrett 07:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Rainbow Gathering, as per Jonathunder. FreplySpang (talk) 18:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per the above. Radiant_* 10:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Murat McKeown

Delete as vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 15:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep FroggyMoore 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRE Physics test

Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. – flamurai (t) 15:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Article does not appear to match any of the consensus sub-categories listed under the above general knowledge base link, at least IMHO. It does, however, perhaps delve too far into the minutiae of this minor topic to be interesting. Perhaps the table could be compatified a bit? — RJH 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. RickK 19:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can become one of a sheaf of articles on individual subject tests (sociology, history, engineering etc.) which collectively will provide a comprehensive picture of standardized testing, an important phenomenon at all levels of education in the US. Fg2 07:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, borderline. Article needs major cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, article is rather crappy but seems like a worthwhile subject. Radiant_* 08:21, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

100 Greatest Guitar Solos

Delete. Primarily an external link. Totally subjective, no chance of being NPOV. —Wahoofive | Talk 16:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, like 100 Greatest Britons. Kappa 16:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Yes this could become encyclopedia worthy if someone writes down the list. As it is its pretty useless. This 100 Greatest Guitar Solos was published thats why its worth more than individual persons lists. Just like the 100 Greatest Britons BBC list is worth more than my own where I would say Princess Diana would definitely be under greats like Isacc Newton. One died tragically and one DISCOVERED GRAVITY. I may not have an account but please take in consideration what I have said. And please do not strike this out because I have not created an account. -Anonymous 21:33, 14 Apr 2005

-I now have an account, Redwolf24. I have also worked on this article a lot.

Delete Even if the information was imported in from the external site this has two POV problems. The obvious problem of the subjectivity of the list (I am personally appalled that the Jimi Hendrix version of the Star Spangled Banner comes in the bottom half). The second is that "Guitar Solo" here means "Rock Guitar Solo". No classical guitar, no folk guitar, no jazz guitar, etc. Dsmdgold 16:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV, copyvio. RickK 19:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the copyvio? Kappa 20:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There must be thousands of people who've created a "100 greatest guitar solos" list. Why should we have an article about this particular list? Dave the Red (talk) 19:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you find another one? Kappa 20:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • While I've had trouble finding other lists of 100 greatest guitar solos, I've found a list of the 25 greatest guitar solos [5] and a list of 19 of the greatest guitar solos [6] and a list of the top 10 greatest solos [7]. And there are many, many more where that came from. Are all these lists encyclopedicly notable? Or is this notable because it is a list of 100? No change in vote. Dave the Red (talk) 04:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • This one is notable enough because it comes from a notable source and is inherently interesting. Same for other lists from notable sources, but merging them might be a good idea. Kappa 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, advertisement, and most importantly, original research. --InShaneee 20:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Um maybe you could explain how this counts as original research? Kappa 21:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic article from non-notable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But redirect to "Notable Rock Guitar Solos" Klonimus 04:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, unencyclopaedic. Megan1967 07:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV. Replace with redirect as per Klonimus. Radiant_* 08:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. K1Bond007 19:22, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, this is not the individual editor's POV, even though the title leads one to believe that it is. I don't know if a redirect to Guitar World would be ok, or if it would be problematic. The article as it stands *is* POV. I'd say just add the ext link to the list onto Guitar World (which I just did) and delete this article. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: I believe a revote should happen because the article has changed dramatically. (Posted by 71.112.132.42)

Changes

I've redone the entire page, wikified and listed correctly all the artists and songs, so I think all of these votes need to be recast because this is an entirely differently article then the one voted upon. As to my vote, I don't know how good the title of the article is, perhaps moved to Guitar World's 100 Greatest Guitar Solos would satisfy some, but piss others off even more, so I don't know about that solution. As for the notability of both Guitar World and the list, I think that if we can have a mess of oversized pages devoted to Halo fan-art which are completely acceptable and somehow don't cross into the non-notable or advertising realms then I think this one can stay. Especially because of the huge pain in the ass it was for me to rewrite it all in Wiki. --TheGrza 02:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning "notability", only the first extra sources from Dave the Red makes some sense, the other two are opinionated rubish. More broadly, this list only makes sense if viewed from the perspective of the historical date when this list was made. Its like a time capsule. Certainly, the list would have looked different in 1980. It will certainly look different in 2010. The only honest thing to do, in order to keep this - at least for musicians and guitar fans - interesting reference, is to introduce historical perspective and delete all solos after a certain cut-off point. I would suggest 1975. Or anything that is less than 30 years old. Thus we can keep updating it based on naturaly POV, opinionated and unqualified perceptions of bad journalists, fanatic ott fans and frustrated musicians, provided there is a published reference by one of the mainstream guitar magazines. Wikipedians can also vote: maybe TheGrza could set up a Q on surveymonkey every other year and bring the results into this page? --Modi 16:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in putting any more work into this page; it was annoying and I'll be the first one to agree that it's not altogether interesting or certifiably valid. But it is the list, from one moment in time of the biggest magazine geared toward this stuff and I think it should be simply renamed to Guitar World's List of 100 Greatest Guitar Solos (2004) or something along those lines. It clearly isn't the 100 Greatest Guitar solos because there it's geared toward rock and away from, say Bach, but I still think it's relevant.--TheGrza 23:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2)

I'm not quite sure what to do with this one. On one hand, it seems to be fairly well documented within the Sims 2 community. On the other hand, it's crufty, it's a how-to, and aside from maybe a brief mention of its existance, I don't see how it can be encyclopedic. --InShaneee 16:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of interest to many Sims fans, and an interesting example of a sims phenomenon to curious non-fans. Kappa 17:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as one of the editors noted "seems kinda lengthy for such an obscure subject". While it may have nobility in the Sims 2 community, the article could definitely be condensed and merged with The Sims 2. K1Bond007 23:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with K1Bond007. Meelar (talk) 23:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Sims 2. Megan1967 07:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (not entirely WP:FICT, but the same principle holds here IMHO). Radiant_* 08:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep, 245,000 Google hits for Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2). But if we do merge, than a brief mention and an external link would suffice, to not mess up the readability of the main article.-LtNOWIS 15:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Sims 2. --asciident 16:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: basically what Kappa said. Moderately noteworthy in the Sims community, and disk space is cheap. -- pne 04:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 69.212.70.172 00:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Woman on top sex position (no pictures)

A fork of Woman on top sex position. Unlike similar cases, this violates the GFDL omitting author information, and encourages divergent textual content. —Korath (Talk) 16:41, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete We've already got a policy on the appropriate use of pictures on wikipedia. Letting this stand will open the floodgates for all kinds of duplicate articles. Is that Halo screencap too violent? Is that chimp's wang visable in that photo? Is that comic book character's uniform too revealing? --InShaneee 16:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. RickK 19:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. The funny thing is that this article does have pictures. Dave the Red (talk) 19:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fork. – flamurai (t) 20:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Fork. K1Bond007 23:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 07:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. --cesarb 16:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Dmn / Դմն 19:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Its also inacurately named as there are 3 picures (two quite explicit drawings) in the article. It couldn't be accurately titled (no photos) either at the first image is (probably) a photograph. Thryduulf 20:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gmaxwell 23:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dale R. Corson

Seems to be a vanity page. Can someone affirm this?

Above by 62.251.89.253

Keep former President of Cornell University. Is that not noteable or vanity. TAS 16:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep same reason as above --Xtreambar 18:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Cornell University. Radiant_* 08:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keeep - Notable. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 07:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Flock

Non-notable (nothing on google), vanity. Tufflaw 16:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. There are some semi-notable Michael Flocks out there, but none of them appear to be this guy. Mwanner 17:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Del. Nonnotable. He's a junior in high school. —msh210 18:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:48, 15 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. Also Egil, the nominator withdrew his nomination on a rewritten version. Sjakkalle 09:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straight-14

There are doubts that notable engines of this configuration really has been built. Anyway, there is no point in having such an article unless something significant can be said. Other than that a Straight-14 has 14 cylinders in a row. -- Egil 16:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The only known engine of this type became well-known due to these photos, taken at the Aioi Works in Japan and spread through blogs. --SFoskett 17:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Since the article is now updated, I'll change my vote into a keep. -- Egil 18:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, presumably fascinating to engine devotees. Kappa 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Marvelous engine. Klonimus 04:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. Megan1967 07:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Straight-24, Straight-12 etc. Radiant_* 08:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are two problems with merging all of the inline-engine articles into Straight engine: first, each of the V-engine configurations presently has its separate article; second, one is likely to be looking for the more common configs as, e.g., "Straight 8". I say keep the "14", as it (astonishingly) exists, and delete the Straight-24, unless/until one can be shown to exist. -- Mwanner 22:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straight-24

There are doubts that notable engines of this configuration really has been built. Anyway, there is no point in having such an article unless something significant can be said. Other than that a Straight-24 has 24 cylinders in a row. -- Egil 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Straight-14, Straight-12 etc. Radiant_* 08:13, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and posibly move resulting page to something like 'inline engines' Andypasto 08:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: That would be Straight engine, which already exists. For Straight-24 there is nothing to merge. -- Egil 08:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Straight engine until anyone finds any useful information about these. I am not convinced, as I explain on the talk page, that any engines of this configuration have actually been built. Some aircraft references make offhand references to 'inline 24' engines, but on closer reading they are actually using 'inline' to mean "neither radial nor rotary" and the engines they are referring to are actually V or H configuration engines, rather than straight. —Morven 21:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will Zulauf

Non-notable, vanity. 156.63.101.132 has been creating multiple pages about nobodies from Ohio that either contain little information or are derogatory. Tufflaw 16:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Is that a vote, Tufflaw?

Delete - Yes, sorry - I'm the who started the vfd, thought it was assumed the first person is in favor of deletion. Tufflaw 18:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable. —msh210 18:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - possible vanity. Maybe I'm wrong, but kids who like to play Baseball in High School just don't seem that Notable. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

actually they are featured in a magazine.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 03:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Postseptemberism

Delete as neologism. Googling on every variation I could find returns a total <10. Feco 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I know anons are void. Oh well anyway: delete. Anon. 213.190.129.19 17:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Del as neologism. —msh210 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism with no widespread usage. (If kept maybe we should rename it to "Octoberism".) -Willmcw 18:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phils 20:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dic def. No chance of expansion. Useful content about such thing can be put in an article with a better name. Mgm|^(talk) 20:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Also revert current Sep 11 article, which now links to this page, upon deletion. Captainmax 06:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 07:54, 15 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. 24.165.233.150 02:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charter School of Wilmington

Seemingly not notable. No vote. —msh210 17:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Considering the main description of the school is "The Charter School of Wilmington, known as "Charter" is the home of gangsters," I vote delete. Charter schools have a greater probability of having something noteworthy to say, but there isn't any content yet, not even a link to their better-than-average website. —Wahoofive | Talk 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The deciding sysop should take into consideration that user account Wahoofive was created one month ago, immediately gravitating towards VfD-related discussions. —RaD Man (talk) 02:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This seems baseless. The first edit to a vfd I see in his contributions is on March 27, nearly a month after his first edit. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable charter school. BEEFSTEW of 0. Dave the Red (talk) 18:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Let me preface by saying I didn't write the ridiculous original article, but as a Delaware resident I do feel Charter School of Wilmington is worthy of mention. It was the first charter school in Delaware (and one of the first in the country, if I'm not mistaken). I've rewritten the article- didn't have time for more than a stub at this point. I vote Keep until some more substance can be added.--Briangotts 19:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "one of the first public/private charter schools in the country". Kappa 20:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • and also "Charter School of Wilmington is the highest performing public high school" in Delaware. [8] Kappa 21:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiability established. Subject is not vanity, original research or nonsense.--Centauri 22:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and look forward to Briangotts expansion. I would have voted delete for the original version but it is now a decent stub with someone promising to work on expanding it. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UT
• Keep A School that is notable by nature and its attribute of being the first charter school in Delaware. Klonimus 04:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Wilmington, Delaware and delete - Skysmith 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep great new stub. I'm looking forward to the expansion as well. - Lucky 6.9 05:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Skysmith. Radiant_* 11:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • You should know by now that merge/delete isn't a valid vote. Kappa 16:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, and your point is? My vote is plainly merge, I didn't mention delete. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's up to BEEFSTEW 1 (A), but only because of the irrelevant third sentence, which properly belongs in Charter schools in Delaware or Education in Delaware or such. —Korath (Talk) 19:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid stub, looks interesting. —RaD Man (talk) 01:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand this school article. "Seemingly not notable" says msh210? Surely it is notable to the thousands of people who's lives are affected by the article's subject. Notability is subjective. Please stop deleting school articles. ~leif ☺ _HELO 19:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• keep the first charter school in the state of de Yuckfoo 01:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I waited a while on this one, hoping something could be made of it. However, the addition of an irrelevant third line about charter schools just showed how little actual information there is here. "One of the first charter schools"? Honestly, what does that even mean? The 3rd one? Tenth one? Perhaps the first charter school would be notable. Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another school. And so unnotable that no-one has bothered to write more than a stub. The JPS 11:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we were waiting for Briangotts to get back to it. Kappa 11:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Has been upgraded and is pretty notable -CunningLinguist 02:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As per all schools, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. High schools should not have to prove notability, but this one is notable anyway. By many measures, it is the best high school in Delaware. It was one of the first public/private charter schools in the nation, and 6 major companies run it. Unique and interesting. --BaronLarf 20:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth.  ALKIVAR™ 09:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Houshuang 01:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. This is an encyclopedia not a directory. You fail BEEFSTEW, you fail me. Clear enough, I think. Master Thief Garrett 01:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is subjective. There is plenty of room in this encyclopedia for articles about schools. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 19:57, 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. Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris Beausoleil

Delete. Non-notable and vanity. --Briangotts 18:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It was written awfully; I've fixed it a bit; check it again. Google him if you like. Keep. —msh210 18:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Move to Christopher Beausoleil; otherwise, keep. (Can I just move it now, while it's on VFD, sans vote? —msh210 13:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - No results from Google with: "Chris Beausoleil" "cystic fibrosis" Non-notable and vanity. --Anonymous Cow 22:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Results for "christopher...", though. Whoever wrote the article misnamed it, that's all. —msh210 13:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 09:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Livengood

not notable, unless we consider a national ranking at Magic:The Gathering notable. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a long time follower of Steve, I think his Magic: The Gathering ranking speaks for itself. Any game with a million dollar protour deserves recognition. Also, changing someone's post (as was done to yours) to suit your needs is childish.Robinsonbp1@gcc.edu B. Robinson

• Delete Magic: The Gathering gets a lot of Google hits, but not Stephen Livengood. Mwanner 18:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• At the least, a person should be able to support themself by playing their game. Kai Budde, for example, clearly deserves an article. This guy does not. Anyone who can earn a living only through cards, I would say, deserves an article, or at least a merge and redirect to a list; this only gets a delete vote. Sorry. Meelar (talk) 19:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not sufficiently notable for winning regional tourneys or having a national ranking. If he were the sole World Champion in a given year, that would barely make the edge of WP-worthiness by my tastes; I'd rather have world champs in a table in the game's main article, not their own bios. I know several former World Champions of Diplomacy (game), but I don't think they're notable enough to have articles here. Barno 19:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm curious as to what his ranking actually is, but since it's not mentioned I doubt it's noteworthy. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 20:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MTGcruft. Klonimus 03:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lots of people have national rankings - it means you participate in tourneys. Unless you actually win a lot (per Kai Budde) your article would be WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 08:15, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (content placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Airports of the United States that need articles

Self (WP)-referential. Belongs in Wikipedia or Talk namespace. Delete or move somewhere. —msh210 18:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A better solution to the problem was suggested so I removed all of the material added making the article empty. Vegaswikian 18:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The (information ?) once present here might have been profitably merged into Wikipedia:Requested articles -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gyrating bhtch

• Delete vanity. --Briangotts 18:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable, advertisement. Could possibly be speedied for no content. --InShaneee 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity, promo. Megan1967 07:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are entries in Wikipedia for U2. How is this band any different? Why does it matter that U2 is well-known and this band is not? Is part of Wikipedia's charter that only notable people, places and things should be allowed in? And if so, what criteria should therefore be used to determine what is "notable"? There are plenty of important people events that got swept under the rug by a lack of media coverage, or a lack of awareness, that were nonetheless important. Many artists labored in obscurity during their own time, only to be "discovered" long after their death. It seems to me that judging an entry based on how popular it is does a serious dis-service to this project as a whole.

However, the "vanity" charge is fully warranted. I will update the text of the submission to make it more objective.

unsigned coments from user:24.27.39.144, who created the Gyrating bhtch article.

Vanity charge not at all warranted! From the Wikipedia definitions: (entries) about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable.

unsigned comment from user:68.77.141.109 19:51, 16 Apr 2005 -- this user's first edit.

• Delete. If sockpuppets want to keep it, it's gotta go! P Ingerson 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"If sockpuppets want to keep it..." What does that even mean? The first draft of the entry was biased, I admit, but I have changed the text to make it more objective. It now seems to conform with Wikipedia's own entry standards, does it not? And if not, then why? Certainly, deletion is not recommended here because of reviewer bias, right? So what objective standards are being applied now to warrant deletion?

• Delete. Unlike this band U2 meets the Wikimusic Project guidelines which specifies that an artist meet at least one of the criteria namely top 100 success in major or medium sized market, won awards, performed on a national tour, or recorded at least two albums with major label or reasonably well-known independent label. This band will be eligible too when it meets any of this criteria.Capitalistroadster 00:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is verifiable and may be of interest to more than a few people. From what I understand from the limited search that I made of this band on Google, their performances are more like the avant-garde "happenings" that were common in art communities of past decades. These events were ephemeral. Their documentation, whether only in the minds of the audience or as Christo has done in his tangible records for his projects, is the only proof that they happened at all. It seems that a wiki-community is an appropriate place for such an art form to be documented. --Newdeal 16:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Todd Shorey

Nonnotable vanity; del —msh210 18:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vanity del Who 19:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• nonsense, speedy delete. Feydey 19:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I wouldn't mind if it was funny.--Crestville 23:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VanHauvsingen family

Likely hoax. / Uppland 19:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Likely hoax or typo. No Google results (nor with a space before the h). —msh210 19:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopaedic, possibly vanity, probably hoax. Draktorn 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (GMT)
  • User:Draktorn's first ever edit [9]. JamesBurns 06:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete as Hoax I can't see this being vanity. Even if it were true, who would want to broadcast the fact that two of their family members had been murdered? joan53

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netbux

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise multi-level marketing schemes. MLM's are illegal in many countries. Delete.-gadfium 19:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Wikipedia should be a place to document MLM schemes (which certainly has an instructive character). We have articles on all kinds of dubious and criminal organizations and scams, and Wikipedia is often one of the better sources on them. So for me it's really a question of whether this is a notable MLM scheme. If in fact 13'000 people fell for it in roughly a week, it's going to be a notable RSN. Rl 21:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Change my vote to Delete. Fortunately, this particular scam doesn't look like it's ever going to become notable now. I still find it's an interesting variant because it involves ripping off third parties, but that's presumably the very reason it's not going anywhere. Rl 12:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Illegal. RickK 22:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Note to RickK: Yes of course its illegal. But as RI said, whether a scheme is legal or not, wikipedia is in my opinion one of the best places to document it. 13,000 people in one week is not a small number, and the amount of places i am beginning to see referral id's is so alarming that i am sure this MLM will be a big one. Sure, wikipedia aint a place to promote MLM's, but it is a place to document them. THE KING 23:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ... which we do, at pyramid scheme, Ponzi scheme, and the like. Is your vote Redirect to any of those? Uncle G 12:01, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Paradiso 01:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant advertising for a week-old scam site. Agree that they should be documented, but only those that have shown notability. This is just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 02:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant commercial promotion. Allowing a keep for this would set a bad legal precedent for wikipedia. Megan1967 08:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant_* 08:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

---

NOTE: I have now re-written the article. Please reconsider all the above delete votes. ------

It is no longer advertising, nor is it POVy in any way. Oh and if you think it is then don't complain here - fix it. THE KING 12:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your rewrite is certainly an improvement, except that you subtly readded the link to their website with a referral number in it. I've removed that, but your readding it shows a lack of good faith. In my opinion, the subject is still not worthy of being on Wikipedia.-gadfium 00:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No sense in pumping up some minor scam's Google hits. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Carlton, with no link to the actual website, we shouldn't be bumping up its google hits. THE KING 02:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That's Calton, as the sig clearly reads. And it takes links for Google to pick up text on a page? Imagine my surprise. And do you mean links like this one on your user page, hmmm? I re-affirm my delete vote above, and only wish I could do so twice. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there an independent verifiable source for that 15,000 people claim? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • On the netbux home page, it says how many members it has. I have adjusted the page to reflect this. THE KING 01:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I came to this page looking for info on this site, and I found it. Not the best info, but it could be made into something much better. Perhaps background information, how they make money, ect. I think delelting this article would just be pointless. -Mark 68.43.49.65 (talk · contributions)
  • It need hardly be mentioned that this is this anon's only edit to Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ

Ετητης) 09:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, is this better? I don't think I've done much editing due to everything always being fixed by the time I click edit. Pests 02:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not really; this is the first and only edit from Pests (talk · contributions). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And I note that it's shrinking very rapidly ([10]). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• To clear up the controversy about how many members netbux has, please check the homepage of netbux. The other day, it said 10,000 and i updated the page to reflect this. NOW they have 15,000+ members (plz check homepage if you dont believe me) and i am going to update the page again.
• Keep. It is important to keep track of these schemes. As to its notability I recieved no less then 20 propositions in the past week about it so it is apparently notable enough. Falerin 18:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: user has 20 edits.
• Keep. I wanted more info and found it. No reason not to document this. If wikipedia is concerned about commercial promotion, they should remove all pages containing references to corporate entities. I do agree that there should not be a link with a refferer ID in it coming from the wiki. 66.0.249.126 16:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This bears an interesting resemblance to the comment & vote from 68.43.49.65 (talk · contribs) above. needless to say, this address has been used to make this edit only, and the earlier address hasn't been used to make any edits since its vote here. THE KING (talk · contribs) (who is apparently desperate to earn some money, and placed the referral link on his User page) seems also to be desperate for this article to be kept. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have heard from people saying this is legit. It's not commercial promotion if all of the other companies can have their pages. No reason that "NetBux" shouldn't be documented. --Randy 21:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• i am now updating the page, based on the stats on the front page of netbux. They now have 26,000 members - very notable! THE KING 03:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form, or merge with multi-level marketing or something similar. --SPUI (talk) 08:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone can start their own mlm scheme and claim that they have 2500, 25000 or 250000 members on their website; this is still not a reason to mention it here. --Ktotam 14:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: THE KING left a nice note on my talk page asking me to reconsider my vote. While the article is better than it was, is it really an encyclopedia article? I fear this will balloon into yet another scheme to co-opt the site for furthering an agenda. IMO, this could be worse than all the Sollogs, GNAA's and pedophiles combined. Sorry King, but no change of vote. - Lucky 6.9 03:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• He left me a note as well. But I can't really find the 'substantial rewrite' he claims has occured. As such I don't really see a reason to change my vote. However, SPUI's suggestion of merging to multi-level marketing sounds like an appropriate alternative. Radiant_* 07:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a notable enough site. Moncrief 08:00, 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 speedy deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Donkey Raper

Delete. Neologism? Hoax? Whatever. FreplySpang (talk) 20:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Life's too short to waste on rubbish like this. Deb 20:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Donkey Rape is a serious problem, it should be talked about openly. --63.85.132.5 20:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as nonsense. Just tag crap like this with {{delete}}. Nothing to discuss here. Move along, folks, move along. Postdlf 20:31, 14 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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Francus

Delete. - according to The History of the Franks, by Gregory of Tours (Georgius Florentius) which is the oldest work which talks about the subject so far as I know: "The first King of the Franks was Clodio (Chlogio) [He was married to Basina De Thuringia, born 398 A.D., whose father was Wedelphus, King of Thuringians." Which leaves "Franco" out on a limb with no history, so to speak. Also, look at the wikipedia list of kings: List of Frankish Kings --KillerChihuahua 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I can't believe this has been here this long. Unless it's validated, delete. RickK 22:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 07:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vergo

Delete - Google search of "vergo fasting" or "Lefterios Manious" returns no relevant results. FreplySpang (talk) 20:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as noted above. Feydey 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 08:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as noted above. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I concur. --Coolcaesar 19:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sullivan Black

So this Sullivan Black was supposedly the antagonist of Gilbert White. Identical years of birth and death. Many impressive names among the people he allegedly met or corresponded with. "Fortunately, a small archive of Black's manuscript work survives in that village". The article author claims in this (and other articles he changed accordingly, which also makes up the entirety of his edits) that Black "was an adept early practitioner of the limerick verse-form" and offers this gem as proof:

Seducing young Annie Buccleuch

In Hawkley, a storm raged and blew.

The Hanger collapsed [2]

But I did not lapse.

I enquired, “Did the earth move for you?”.

[2] This dates Black's seduction precisely to the night of 8th/9th March 1774, when the side of the Hanger [the local term for a steep clay ridge] collapsed in a fierce storm. A cottage built on the site is still known as "Slip Cottage".

Google draws empty. I smell a rat.Rl 20:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Was he later named as Antipope George Ringo? FreplySpang (talk) 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. (In case anyone doesn't get the joke of the name, "Sullivan" is a natural counterpart to "Gilbert" and Black is of course the opposite of White.) --Angr/_comhrá 21:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious hoax. Megan1967 08:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Why delete?. Is there no room for gentle comedy in Wikipedia? It's not as if it were a libellous or ridiculous entry on the Pope, the President or even Gilbert White himself. You'd have to go looking for it specifically. It harms nobody. Plestor House is opposite The Wakes. The Hanger did collapse on the night in question. Hawkley is 3 miles from Selborne. Slip Cottage does exist to this day. --Sherefong 12.11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is a place for gentle comedy in WP, it's the user pages. Gentle comedy is wrong (and thus bad) information. If say a user checks "What links here" on Gilbert White's article, she won't expect to be offered, among other pages, a hoax. In my personal opinion, hoax pages that look genuine are much more damaging to WP than vandalism, and they are more expensive to fix. Please consider making positive contributions to WP. Rl 18:30, 17 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 the rewrite, nomination withdrawn as well. Sjakkalle 09:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Italian-Canadian

Delete as dicdef. No potential to become encyclopedic. Something like notable italian-canadians maybe, but not the plain ole' definition. Feco 21:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I nominated, fully expecting this to be the typical "I'll create a subsubsubsubsub-stub and expect someone else to flush it out"... since User:Ground Zero had done an excellent re-write, I change to Keep. Feco 22:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like Italian-American. Kappa 21:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what's next, an article on Trinidadian-Luxembourgians? Uruguayan-Congonese? We do not need dicdefs for every possible 2-country combination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, and keep expanding. I'm still in favour of deleting any stubs that read "Xian-Zians are people from X who live in Z" or similar though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• While this could have been speedied as it has no real content, the subject itself is very much worthy of an article. We already have good pages on German-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, Ukrainian Canadian, and Japanese Canadian. There are 1.2 million Italian Canadian and I'm actually surprised we don't have a real article on them yet. - SimonP 21:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems like most developed XXXXian-YYYYian articles consist of the same storyline... how they arrived, why they came, what has their collective experience been since arriving, who are some prominent members of the group, where were/are they geographically concentrated. Each of those topics certaintly deserves its own article for each group. In my book, the "parent" article XXXXian-YYYYian would just be a listing of the subarticles where each individual topic can be more fully addressed. Yay usability! Feco 21:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although worthy an article when written better. Feydey 21:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but only as long as it stays in such a state. Keep updated Circeus 21:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've responded to the challenge of those above and added some text, much of it along the lines of what Feco proposes. Please take a look at that and reconsider your vote, and better yet, add more text. There should be an article on one of the largest ethnic groups in Canada. Ground Zero 22:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 23:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten and expanded. Just as worthy of an article as Italian-American, etc. as long as there's worthwhile content. 23skidoo 23:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There is plenty of content that can be added to this article. Mindmatrix 00:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important topic and the article has a lot of potential. Paradiso
• Keep. 1.2 million of them apparently and the article is in good shape thanks to Ground Zero. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Italians have made many notable contributions to the cuisene of Soviet Canuckistan. Klonimus 03:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Total content of the original entry was "Canadians of Italian descent" sans period. I'm guessing vandal bot because of that. Hey, we got a great article out of this one! - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course, with props to Ground Zero for the expansion and also to Feco, Starblind and Circeus for revisiting their votes. Highly important cultural group in Canada. (Why just the other day, I went on a binge of populating Category:Italian-Canadian politicians, off the top of my head, with existing articles.) Samaritan 14:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —Michael Z. 2005-04-16 16:02 Z

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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); merged and redirected. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marjorie Pay Hinckley

Not notable in her own right. Merge into article on her husband? RickK 21:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Her position as the spouse of a leader of a major religion put her in a position to have an impact of her own. I'm not a historian and cant' really come up with any examples, nor do I currently feel inclined to research the topic, however I'm certain that this stub can be expanded and made encyclopedic. Arkyan 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major Wife of Religious Figure. Brigham Young, said that women were Utah's greatest resource, and has faithful mormon's they husband thier resources. Klonimus 03:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because someone is married to someone notable does not make that person inherently notable. This issue has been discussed before. Megan1967 08:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, being related to a notable person does not make you notable. Article doesn't establish any kind of notability, and Klonimus's claim is pure speculation. Radiant_* 08:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I see nothing here to indicate that she is important in her own right. Indrian 03:58, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Ejrrjs | What? 22:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vamp® - Your sweet beasts!

google has a hard time finding any text references to the magazine... google finds zero pages that link to the magazine (search term "link:www.vamp-magazine.com". Article creator is User:Ercsaba, which looks like a match with the magazine's editor Csaba L. Erőss. Feco 21:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note the similar VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vamp - Your sweet beasts!. Feco 19:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this silly-titled magazine. The website exists, but has no Alexa rank at all! Likely spam, certainly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advert. (We actually have an article that includes the registered trademark symbol?!) Mwanner 22:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete any article which tries to include a registered or copyrigted mark in its title. RickK 22:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Hey Wikipedia, this is not a vote but I just came across this. Vamp - Your sweet beasts! (different one and it is Not Safe For Work), Amateurpussycat and Vampsexkitten. --Anonymous Cow 01:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Also not a vote, is a comment: I seen also the Vamp - Your sweet beasts!, and I think somebody put new information about an European magazine. My opinion is, who made, correct his/her first time errors... However, we can delete, the Hustler, Playboy and the Penthouse pages, no?... Let's think a bit more... Mozsi 04:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, let's see... Playboy.com has an Alexa rank of 785... the Vamp website has no Alexa rank at all (Alexa ranks the top 6 million sites or so). Pretty hard to compare notability between those two. It's kind of like saying that if a comic character I created in kindergarten doesn't get an article, then we have to delete Superman and Spiderman too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete strictly because of the registered copyright mark on its title. I doubt that anyone would type in that mark when trying to serach for Vamp - Your sweet beasts!. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as being advertising of own magazine (see nomination) and having no Alexa rank. Hustler, Playboy and the Penthouse are in a totally different league and far wider known across the world and made it into pop culture. Mgm|^(talk) 07:55, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and its clones as self-advertising, and I agree, anything with registered trademark symbols in its name should be an automatic candidate for deletion - a legitimate article can handle trademark issues in the article body, if needed. -- The Anome 08:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the title without the registered trademark, if anyone can actually verify that this magazine is real and published in multiple languages keep, otherwise delete--nixie 08:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete any article with an ® in its title. Radiant_* 08:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement--Anonymous Cow 20:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for supreme non notability and ® in title. Thryduulf 16:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the other Vamp and keep that one.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vamp - Your sweet beasts!. Megan1967 09:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wryn Vance

Delete --Not notable. Vanity. Mwanner 21:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - NN vanity. --Anonymous Cow 22:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. It has been done by User:MacGyverMagic. Sjakkalle 10:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lester, Singapore

Not notable. Kidcruft. -- RHaworth 22:18, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

• Personal attack on non-notable subject. Speedy. Kappa 23:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, pure nonsense. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a personal attack. It is much worse than mere "kidcruft". Sjakkalle 07:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. Mgm|^(talk) 07:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty article. Megan1967 08:11, 15 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 (pending; block-compress error). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ipsegensphobia

I believe this is a neologism, as the only mentions I see online are at Wikipedia mirrors. Without any further documentation, delete. Joyous 22:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 08:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 17 googles. NNneologism. Delete. Radiant_* 08:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Justine Kreuk

The sister of a famous person is not famous. RickK 23:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Also, a gymnast is not notable until she has won some major competitions. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Winning isn't necessarily a prereq for notability. See, for example, Phil Mickelson (this was the case for him for a while), and Anna Kournikova. But I would still vote to delete this article because she hasn't made the 2010 Olympics team, much less participated, won, etc.... (And there isn't a Summer Games in 2010. Which Olympics is this?) Justine herself gets only 59 Google results, a lot of which are repeats and keyword-stuffing incidents. --Idont Havaname 04:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article as this person's accomplishment is notable for her skill and unique Gymnastic talents.

I am the author of the page. It may seem to be a double standard if my article is to be deleted. I have seen articles on famous people where related obscure people got written about. For example, Britney Spears had a non-famous and obscure man in her life, Kevin Federline, and he was written about in even less detail. Granted Kristin is far less popular than the pop star, but the standard should be the same for every celebrity, yes?

• Comment: The biggest non-speculative claim to notability would be "placed in top finishes in numerous provincial competitions". Kappa 00:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kevin Federline was a dancer before he ever started dating Britney Spears. RickK 22:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• No, the standard should not be the same for every celebrity. Why would they be? Delete. Meelar (talk) 01:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: her only verifiable gymnastics result is a second placing in the Open Level II all-around division at the Flicka Gymnastics Club in 2002 [11]. She'll be notable when she gets to Vancouver, not before. --bainer 07:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a celebrity. Every little girl wants to be a gymnast (or a dancer or some kind of athlete). Get her out of here. When she wins the Olympics, then an article might be appropriate. --Coolcaesar 19:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering we seem to have an article on every person who has ever participated in the Olympics, I would say she could have an article if she appears in the Olympics, not necessarily wins them. RickK 22:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Siujang

Delete. Interesting enough fact, but its hard to see this ever rising to the encyclopedic standard. Mwanner 22:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not even sure what the fact is. Is "Si-" a prefix attached to any name, in which case Ujang is just an example? This would possibly place it the equivalent of -san in Japanese or Mr. in English. The Japanese "-san", which is undoubtedly more notable than "Si-", only has a definition on the disambiguation page for that term rather than an individual article, and "Si-" should just be added to the corresponding article at si and the example of siujang deleted. If this is unique to the name "Ujang", however (which doesn't even have an article itself), then it's trivial beyond belief. Postdlf 00:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 08:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bus models used in New York City

An unencyclopedic, unintelligible garbled list. RickK 23:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Needs to be cleaned up, that cant happen if it is deleted. There is general consensus that rolling stock for major metropolitan public transportation systems is notable. Think about how many billions of passenger miles these busses have carried. Klonimus 03:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is general consensus that rolling stock for major metropolitan public transportation systems is notable. On what planet would that be? Certainly not here on Earth. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. Verifiability established. Article subject is not nonsense, vanity or original research. --Centauri 05:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Since those three standards are not the only disqualifiers for an article, that's pretty much an immaterial statement.
• Keep or merge with the New York City Bus System. Unlike the bus routes, this information is not readily available on the company's website, so the argument for keeping this is stronger. Information is subject to change though and will need frequent updates. Sjakkalle 07:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment What is the relationship between this article and this site: http://www.bustalk.net/fleet/ ? They're not identical, but... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete outright. Transport trivia that doesn't even belong in a NYC transport article. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup to something like New York City Subway rolling stock (though that needs more prose about the history, some of which can be moved or copied from New York City Subway#Rolling stock). We have articles on automobile models, presumably including obscure ones of which only a handful have been made, and these have carried many more people. We have articles on locomotive models of which only a handful have been produced, and one of those got a unanimous keep on VFD. --SPUI (talk) 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's only a list of bus models. It's not an encyclopaedic topic! --Neigel von Teighen 23:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Sjakkalle. Kappa 01:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not particularly notable and nearly impossible to maintain in the long run anyway. Trivial and unencyclopedic. Indrian 03:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's enough transport enthusiasts out there to maintain this stuff. JuntungWu 14:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge with Bus models used in New York City Transit--Pacific Coast Highway 23:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)(7:40pm EST)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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?) 20:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strikken

Fails Music Notability Guidelines test. No national tour. Look like basically a local garage band at the moment. If they get big, great, but for now, wasting space. --Woohookitty 23:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity, promo. Megan1967 08:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peace Burial at Sea

Non notable and non factual. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You might want to check out Peace burial at sea from April 13's vfd's, which suggested merging with this one, IIRC. Grutness|^hello? 00:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: article fails to establish notability according to WP:NMG - they have one album out on a minor indie label. What's more, most of this seems to be gibberish anyway, and seems like vandalism from Special:Contributions/81.23.1.18: [12]. For example: "John, thought to be the son of a Northumbrian rag and bone seller, admitted to having conducted a physical relationship with an oak tree (which he named "Graeme") in a TV documentary, the issue was brought up in the House of Commons." In four months there's been no real information provided other than the members of the band. --bainer 07:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity, sections of the article looks like pure nonsense. Megan1967 08:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then, reluctantly. Shame it's a real band, otherwise it would look good on BJAODN. Actually, it probably should go there anyway. Married a turnip, indeed. Grutness|^hello? 13:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense. Not remotely notable. I lived in Newcastle for 20 years and never heard of them. Anilocra 09:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They are real - I saw them play last night, and thought they were pretty good. They may be non-notable now, but they might become less so soon. I have cleared up the page of the rubbish though. Grinner 15:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They do meet the notability criteria according to WP:NMG having gone on a "national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country". --GF 09:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wet & Wild: Slippery When Wet (2000)

This article is, first of all, nothing but a play-by-play of who gets nude and how they do it in one typical video in one of Playboy's many video series. I don't even know if a valid article could be written on the Wet & Wild series as a whole, and one isolated "volume" is certainly no basis for one. We might as well have articles on individual porn mag issues ("On page 36 of Busty, December 1997, Amber Waves removes her garter straps and poses contrapposto in front of a saddle.") Delete. Postdlf 23:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, there is a List of Playboy videos, which I think, with some cleanup, is an appropriate place to mention the various series in general, but not individual entries in each series. Postdlf 23:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, like Simpsons episode guides. See Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 00:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Though I'm glad to learn learn a new word ("contrapposto"). --Calton | Talk 00:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But I do think that an article about the series might be appropriate. Lots of people watch these! Pornography, and particularly Playboy, is important to a lot of people - even if they are probably not (in general) the same people that read encyclopedias. Musser 00:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Kappa's comments. TigerShark 00:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well I can't say that I've seen all the Playboy videos but I have the impression that there has been a significant change in Playboy's philosophy in the production of their videos from the early 90's to the present. In the early 90's the "Sexy Lingerie" and "Wet and Wild" series were produced and very popular. The production of these videos has completely stopped and we now have videos such as "Sorority Strip Party", "Sexy House Keepers", and "America's Sexiest Bartenders". It seems to me that Playboy is now more concerned with making a profit by producing these sleazy videos than producing tasteful, artistic, and erotic depictions of women. I hoped that in writing a detailed description of each of the Playboy videos one could get an impression of the change that has taken place in Playboy's view of women. I have taken your points into consideration and have removed the NPOV non-NPOV remarks from my article. I hope that other people will be able to contribute their ideas and improve the video articles.Jester2001 01:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jester2001's hair-splitting over "tastefully erotic" and "sleazy" notwithstanding, I fail to see the encyclopedic value of a T&A play-by-play.
• Either keep or merge with an article called Wet and Wild or something of that sort. Either way, the scene-by-scene descriptions should go. Meelar (talk) 01:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Kappa and Meelar. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable T&A video Klonimus 03:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or shorten significantly and merge to List of Playboy videos#Wet and Wild. I have real trouble buying the parallel to the Simpsons. Mwanner 11:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you read what Jester2001 said? This level of detail is extremely valuable to serious researchers, not just porn fans. Kappa 15:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, but serious researchers will turn to original source documents, not encyclopedia summaries. Mwanner 15:43, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • What? Wikipedia isnt good enough? :) Just kidding... Megan1967 09:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 17:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. RickK 23:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not paper either. See m:Wiki is not paper. Jester2001 15:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the implications are mind-boggling - shall we have a play-by-play article of every episodic softcore production on the market? Even IMDB doesn't do that. (yes, I know, we're better than IMDB...). Enough to have one article on the genre and a list of the features. -- 8^D ^gab 13:37, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Keep, notable video. Megan1967 06:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Borderline notable. And fun to read. Everyking 08:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there are three issues here. One is, can we have an article on an individual work of art, literture or music. Clearly the answer here is yes since we do it all the time. The second is whether this specific video is worthy of its own article. Little evidence has been provided about the notability of this particlar video; and we have not as a community set very clear standards. However, I suspect that any video distributed through the channels of Playboy Enterprises Inc is likely to reach a lot of people. Lots more, for example than many of our articles on underground rock bands. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we should err on the side of inclusiveness, hence my vote to keep. The third issue rased here is not about the existence of the article but about its content. Is it consistent with our mission to have such a detailed discussion of what happens in the movie? In some existing articles on movies or on individual episodes of "The Simpsons" we do have fairly detailed information. Personally, I believe the current version of this article has too much detail, but that is really an issue for editing, it does not matter here on VfD. Johntex 15:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I probably have to agree with you about the amount of detail in this article, but as you said this is an issue for editing. Jester2001 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep BUT clean up. There's a huge NPOV problem here. Lets have the standard literary analyses, response, etc. I see none of that in the article, and it seems the content is intentionally meant to be titillating? (It shouldn't.) Analyses like, its of this style (style in the sense of the delivery, ie. the movie Hero happens to be conducted in a manner which emphasises the fine actions of so and so...) as well as its obvious genre, and such. I don't mind individual articles on every magazine issue in the world, just as long as its encyclopedic. This one isn't at the moment, but can be fixed. -- Natalinasmpf 00:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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