Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2

[edit]

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

While reading through many of the comments below, I note a large number of new and/or anonymous users whose votes have to be steeply discounted. I also note from the comments that many of the people who chose to participate in this discussion are expressing opinions which are at variance to my understanding of our general community norms on similar issues. While there is a clear concensus to keep the article at this time, great caution should be used before considering this a precedent for other decisions. Rossami (talk) 02:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Toki Pona

[edit]

non-notable, not encyclopedic, its a created language (created 2001). Its own creator states there are maybe 12 users worldwide able to converse in it. Does this really belong on here? Alkivar 00:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh and just for good measure this counts as Original research as the language creator is User:Sonjaaa and while we're at it the vanity page Sonja Elen Kisa for user Sonjaaa should go too.  ALKIVAR™
  • Keep. There's a Wikipedia in that language. Etz Haim 01:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And google is in l33t, pig latin, and swedish chef too... doesnt make it noteable or encyclopedic.
Leet has a remarkably expansive entry: and see also B1FF, Pwn, Teh, w00t... Pig latin has a decent article, and Swedish Chef discusses his language. There are systemic biases in favour of both Western English cultural ephemera and computer geek subjects on Wikipedia, hence w00t - fair enough, "hard disks are cheap." But a conlang with a modest but earnest following sticking with it after a few years - larger than some ancient endangered languages - based on the religious philosophy of Taoism, and a demonstration of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, is certainly notable enough for me. Samaritan 06:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Constructed languages don't have to be popular to be notable. They are often interesting and unique examples of what languages can be. Though I found Toki's syntax interesting enough, I'm not sure if it's truely encyclopedic. Intangir 02:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*Not sure. As mentioned elsewhere a google search for "Toki Pona" brings up 26,000 pages. However , about 18,000 of them are wikipedia related, and therefore a little suspect(a google search of ' "Toki Pona" -wikipedia ', gives only 7,650 results). Intangir 03:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, never mind I'd forgotten about Google's pig latin, too. Wyss 04:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! I honestly don't know how many people use the language, although the estimation of 12 seems far too low to me. But, does it matter? Most constructed languages, Toki Pona included, were not created with the purpose of acquiring a community of speakers; instead, they were created as works of art. Establishing the significance of such a language by the number of people who actually use it is the same thing as establishing the significance of a symphony by the size of the orchestra that performs it. If you really want to know how wikifiable a constructed language is, you'll need to find out how complete it is, which degree of esteem it has received inside and outside the conlang community, and how verifiable all this is. Well, Toki Pona scores well on all these fronts. A simple google for "Toki Pona" generates no less than 26,400 hits; seventeen wikipedias feature an article about it, while numerous other wikis refer to it in other articles. As an insider I can assure you that Toki Pona enjoys a high reputation; in fact, it is one of the most successful artistic languages ever created, especially if you consider the fact that it lacks a book or a movie as a vehicle. The article definitely deserves to stay! IJzeren Jan 06:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep One of the most interesting things I have seen on wikipedia. Kensho 06:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Toki Pona and the Sonja Elen Kisa vanity page. The article is just promo for a personal project. As for the wiki, note that Jimbo Wales eventually said something like "Um, that was a mistake". The Toki Pona wiki is no longer hosted by Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I stand corrected. Sonja Elen Kisa isn't a vanity page. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC))
    • Hum! According to Wikipedia:Vanity page, a "vanity page" is a page created by a person about himself or someone close to him. This is obviously not the case here. If you don't know a person, that's fine, but please don't make it personal by calling it vanity! Likewise, do not automatically call an article about a work of art "promo for a personal project", because works of art are personal by definition! IJzeren Jan 07:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC).
      • Have you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? to quote (emphasis mine):
        Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. See Wikipedia:No original research.
      • Have you read Wikipedia:No original research? to quote (emphasis mine):
        However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:
        • The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
        • The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
      • I'm not saying this is not a valid concept language... I'm simply saying Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!  ALKIVAR™ 00:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I know the content of both pages ("What the W. is not" and "No original research"). I completely fail to see the connection to Toki Pona. As far as I am concerned, this whole thing has nothing to do with research. All I can tell you is that Toki Pona is among the more significant constructed languages, and for that simple reason it deserves a place here. Otherwise you might as well throw away the articles about any constructed language other than Esperanto or Quenya, and I don't think anyone is waiting for that. IJzeren Jan 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep Although it's not as well known as some conlangs, it's still interesting. Ckape 07:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alphax (talk) 13:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a conlang I've actually heard of and read about. Although there's probably a very small pool of speakers, it's a worthwhile entry and an elegant (and amusing) concept. --TenOfAllTrades 15:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor conlang, not notable. delete. --fvw* 16:41, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, weren't the other language articles about Toki Pona created by these few people who use it? It's not like someone uninvolved came along, thought it was notable, and wrote about it (as far as I understand). Adam Bishop 22:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean like this? That's where I originally learned about Toki Pona. Ckape 05:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hégésippe Cormier 22:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability outside the heavily infiltrated Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 02:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Consign to bit-bucket. Vanity, non-notable. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't seem to be vanity, seems to be well-written article. By the way, there is no longer an Toki Pona Wikipedia, but Wikicities is hosting the Toki Pona encyclopedia (former wikipedia) now. Pakaran 13:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a criterion for deletion, nor is being a created language. Encyclopaedic is defined in our policy as "what you would expect to find under this title". This clearly has the potential to become this. Keep this. BTW, those 12 people have been busy: they've made 26000 webpages!Dr Zen 01:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The google hits, even after filtering out wikipedia-mirrored content, are very impressive for a constructed language. The (appearent) fact that the language is only spoken by 12 or so people is insignificant to the number of people who have now heard of this language. 7,000+ websites, for a conlang, is meaningful. func(talk) 19:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is actually a somewhat notable conlang. We even have (had?) a Wikpedia in Toki Pona. cprompt 23:28, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned above by IJzeren Jan, if you delete this, you may as well delete Esperanto and its ilk. And why stop there? Let's also delete Latin, no-one speaks that any more(!) The fact that it's not widely spoken does not make it a bad article. The fact that it's constructed does not. OK, the article may have been created by Sonja, but plenty of other people have contributed to it, so it's hardly pure vanity. I see no good arguments for deleting this page. --Darac Marjal 23:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a significant conlang which I often run into on the web (not simply at wikipedia). It is well known among conlang fans. It has a small but real group of people who create original literature, translations, comics, and tutorial sites. It's a linguistically interesting language. Goulo 23:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Toki Pona is indeed new, but how old must something be before it becomes notable? There is a growing community of Toki Pona enthusiasts. --Ghewgill 23:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are definitely more than 12 speakers. For instance, the mailinglist at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tokipona/members lists 155 members. Members translate pieces of literature into Toki Pona and there are many discussions about the evolution of the language. --Leto 00:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Languages are notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, I don't think this is not meant to be a widely spoken language. It seems more like art. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are 'much' more users then twelve and WikiPedia in TokiPona is a very good place to learn the language and increase that number. --Earwin Burrfoot
    • Keep. As Toki Pona is currently in what could be considered an initial period of growth, and as the language already has a large number of followers (who stem from several different base languages), it definitely merits inclusion in Wikipedia.
    • Keep. Toki Pona is the most perfect conlang around. It has the best insa/nimi (meaning/words) value. It's getting more and more popular (slowly, but anyway). It's surely a product of Great Linguist's mind. It is not vanity NO way. Toki Pona is a genious language. Its Wikipedia was one of the best resources for me, beause it was not about toki pona, but it was about whatever usign toki pona. So it was a way to explore things and toki pona simultaneously. Those idiots writing "vanity" just have no idea what they are talking about. Keep it, it IS worth. Thank you.
    • Keep. WikiPedia on TokiPona is really one of the best places to learn the language and one of the most amasing things on the whole WikiPedia.
      • Sorry, I've crossed through the "keeps" of the anon voters above, please see our Wikipedia:Votes for deletion policy. func(talk) 14:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • That was the right thing to do. Besides, this discussion should not deteriorate to auxlang advocacy. IJzeren Jan 23:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep. It may not have many fluent speakers, but it's a moderately notable language/project/conlang/concept, mostly due to the extreme simplicity in the core vocabulary. -- pne 11:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alfio 16:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The language is well-constructed, there are 26,300 Google results, and we have a Wikipedia in that language, which is probably the most obvious consideration to make here. Beginning 23:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously you did not read the comments above before adding to it, founder Jimbo Wales deleted the Toki Pona wiki and moved it over to Wikicities, If you exclude Wikipedia from that google search you get a mere 7000 not 26,300. Seems rather interesting that 2/3rds of the links for it (according to google) are from Wiki. Regardless of which it is still User:Sonjaa's personal pet project language.  ALKIVAR™ 23:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's no need to be snarky or unwelcoming, even if it is something you feel passionate about. I did read the comments, but I felt that the number of Google results was notable even if the majority are from Wikipedia, and since I had just finished viewing an article in Toki Pona, I thought perhaps the above statement was an inaccuracy. Please don't assume someone's ignorant simply because they disagree with you. I still vote keep here. Beginning 23:54, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very well-known conlang. That there are only about a dozen speakers is hard to believe. Long before I came to the Wikipedia, I myself had not only come across it but memorized the entire list of words and grammar. I'm sure I'm not alone. — Ливай | ☺ 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable, is an interesting project and has a well-written article. I wouldn't want to see an explosion of articles by everyone out there who thinks they can create their own language, but I doubt most would come close to this one as a concept. Mattley 09:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its notability is only on wikipedia and mirrored sites. Megan1967 00:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be a common misconception that Toki Pona is only known because of its presence on wikipedia, but that is simply false. I and others learned of it well before noticing it on wikipedia. Extensive websites about it exist, created by people in various countries (I've seen English, German, Russian and Esperanto webpages about Toki Pona). Translations and original works and comics exist. It is simply wrong to assert that it's known only because of wikipedia. Goulo 08:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is absolutely true. Thing is, each wiki entry is mirrored and mirrored ad infinitum. Same with DMOZ entries. That's something inherent to the Wikipedias, and you definitely cannot blame Sonja for that, especially if you take into consideration that she can't even be held responsible for the page! Besides, you are right: even if you omit all the wiki pages and their mirrors, there remain a substantial amount of other web pages. [On a personal note: I am also the author of a language with a wiki entry; let me tell you that it is really annoying to have to dig your way through all those wiki mirrors if you want to check if something new has been written about it]. IJzeren Jan 15:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC).
Hm? I'm not sure if IJzeren is replying to me or to Megan1967. The indentation suggests me, but I wasn't talking at all about the issue of wiki mirroring or whether Sonja wrote about Toki Pona in wikipedia or its mirrors, and I'm not sure what that has to do with the question whether Toki Pona should be deleted from wikipedia. In case it was unclear, I'm saying that Toki Pona has presence and significance independent of wikipedia and its mirrors, and that indeed many people learn of it via sources other than wikipedia and its mirrors. Given that variety of Toki Pona activity that is utterly unrelated to wiki, it is therefore false to assert that Toki Pona is only notable because of wikipedia. Goulo 17:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No worries Goulo, it was indeed thee I had in mind. My point was this: even if 80 % of the Google hits are wiki and mirrors (which essentially happens because wiki pages have a strange way of multiplying themselves and is not Sonja's fault) that still leaves lots of remaining pages. In other words: I fully agree with thee! IJzeren Jan 18:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC).


  • Keep. First of all, a vote for deletion was held on this article fairly recently, and it failed. Second, if Toki Pona gets deleted, then it would be fair to delete Klingon, leet, pig latin, and any other similar language. --Julie-Anne Driver 22:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a typically encyclopedic article, with a topic which has risen remarkably quickly to fame outside the Wikipedia community, and now (it would seem) here, too. It is one the Wikipedia can be proud of — personally, I would not think twice about voting for it as the Wikipedia's Featured Article. --Verdlanco (talk) 19:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on minor races of beings in videogames. Why not Toki Pona? I heard of Toki Pona before I heard of Wikipedia.
  • Keep. If not notable as a 'language', TP is at least notable is an 'internet fenomenon' (as noted above, l33t-speak has a page), the page has already been made conciderably shorter and less informative than before. If to be deleted, it should then get a page noting "TokiPona - a minimalistic constructed language, created in 2001, created alot of fuss and 'flame wars' in WP mailing lists circa 2004. The language was concidered unnotable by the WP concensus and thereby shan't be described". Now, wouldn't that be just grand? (and oh yeah, cross over my keep for anonymusIPishness.
  • Keep. As has been said, we have similar articles and this article could be useful to some. --Sanguinus 10:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was looking at page about wikipedia statistics, which includes about the Toki Pona wiki. So even if this wiki has moved to wikicities, I was still interested in finding out what Toki Pona is, who invented it, etc, etc. So, even if it is from a purly historical point of view, there is still some need to keep this page up.
  • Keep. Is there any reason to delete it? --141.54.172.156 14:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What harm is it doing anyone? And for the millionth time non-notability is not a reason for deleation. Notability is a subjective concept, and to me this is one of the most notable, intersting and exciting articles that i have encountered on wikipedia. The bellman 02:14, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 03:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Celebrity birthdays

[edit]

This sort of listing does not belong in an encyclopedia, and the information contained belongs in the page for a specific date or person. --MadEwokHerd 22:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redundant and unmanageable. --LeeHunter 22:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't actually contain any birth dates, only birth years. Thue | talk 23:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hate to say something apparently against the case I'm trying to make, but the birth dates are there at the beginning of each line. MadEwokHerd 23:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. Megan1967 00:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. Rje 00:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a stealth fork :) Wyss 04:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant and pointless. PMC 21:37, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article has already been deleted. Joyous 03:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nigerian vs american civil war

[edit]

Original research, unencyclopedic, nonsense, marginal speedy but I don't think it qualifies tbh. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: original research, and needs a lot of clean-up to boot, almost a top-to-bottom rewrite. Maybe it can be condensed into a paragraph or two for the Nigeria article? 23skidoo 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not nonsense, just terribly misguided original research. Despite the title, it's mostly about the Nigerian civil war, mentioning the American civil war only in passing. Some of this might be salvageable for the main article, but not without rewriting, and a redirect makes no sense — so no point in voting Merge. JRM 01:15, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Rje 01:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Neutralitytalk 01:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Illegible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research fails Google Test. Megan1967 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research TigerShark 03:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone's unencyclopedic school paper. Szyslak 05:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research with no evidence of peer review and just about the poorest excuse for writing I've read all year. What a disaster. Wyss 04:08, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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/clean up. Joyous 03:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Aurora tower

[edit]

Copyvio. Might be slightly notable but probably not worth listing on cleanup for months on end. Neutralitytalk 01:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm confused... If it's a copyvio, shouldn't it be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead of here? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Coyvio? Then list as such. Otherwise seems to be an excellent subject and a reasonable (if slightly breathless) article. Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't able to find the copyvio with several google searches (whether the spelling was corrected or not). I've replaced the VfD tag, which the original anon author had removed, though. No vote from me. —Korath (Talk) 05:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Potential copyvios belong on Copyright problems. Don't attempt to rewrite policy on your own. 119 07:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable. Text is rubbish, but so is that for Southbank Parklands as well. I'm going to be starting up a WikiProject for Brisbane, and will make cleanup of these articles a priority. Lacrimosus 08:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; send to clean-up. Should never have come here. Dan100 15:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Absolutely no valid reason for deletion given. Dr Zen 01:24, 5 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Jacques Durand

[edit]

Vanity article: 16 year old student with a collection of photos. --LeeHunter 02:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Rje 02:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. --Viriditas | Talk 03:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He seems to be just a regular kid, albeit one with a website and a knack for taking pictures. Ливай | ☺ 05:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Lacrimosus 08:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity Smurf. Cleduc 07:27, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Comment: Whoever formatted the discussion this way PLEASE DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!! These discussions are hard enough to figure out when you can match comment to counter-comment. This reduces us from logic, facts and policy to popularity-counting. Rossami (talk) 02:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logarithmic timeline of current events

[edit]

I don't get it. Neutralitytalk 02:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Keeps

[edit]
  1. Strong keep Fucking brilliant idea, let's give it a chance to grow. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak Keep, needs some further explanations on article for its value. I can see merit in the concept though but anyone who doesn't know anything about logarithmic timescales would be stumped. Megan1967 03:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keep I don't think "I don't get it" is a very good reason for deleting a page. If that's the case, I will just go a head and put vfd on half the pages on this site. ;-) Earl Andrew 04:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Keep. People are maintaining it, and it's not doing any harm. It could certainly use an explanation about the time scale and the theory behind it though. Ливай | ☺ 10:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Keep. Potential to be very useful tool -- monitor it for some months to see that it is maintained properly. Certainly explain background of the idea on the page. --mervyn 11:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Weak keep. It somehow managed to exist since March 2004 and be edited by lots of people. It seems very interesting, but I still haven't fully decided whether it's encyclopedic. Vacuum c 02:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Keep interesting variation on the "current events" page. Kappa 13:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Keep Not sure how this one will pan out and how useful it will be, but I think it is worth taking the chance to nuture this idea. TigerShark 14:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Keep What a good idea! I say keep and run with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Keep. Fantastic idea. Thanks to Neutrality for giving it publicity. BTW apart from Neutrality not understanding it, what were the suggested grounds for deletion? Dan100 15:43, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Keep This page is useful and puts an interesting slant on the way important issues fade over time. Some of the 'Delete' comments might better be taken as suggestions for improvement. Labour intensive? No matter as long as someone cares to do the work. And those who don't like the choice of events are free to comment on the talk page or, of course, just make some changes. Chris Jefferies 16:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Keep Agree with many above that with a better explanation and choice of events this could be an enlightening approach to a timeline. At worst it's no worse than many of the lists of left handed Hungarian snooker players etc that exist and proliferate. Redlentil 16:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Keep, really good idea. --Goobergunch|? 20:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Keep, good idea. Bush Me Up 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong keep. I don't understand the objections. If people disagree with the selection of events to include, anyone can add to or delete from the set of events linked to, so POV mistakes can be corrected. Arguments that this is not encyclopedic would have to apply to the entire Current events section of the wikipedia. Eric Forste 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Keep. DJ Clayworth 05:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Keep. As for "impossible to maintain", Maybe. Lets find out. Maybe archive periodically? Maybe construct these for key dates in history? (Great way to summarize longterm vs. proximate causes of a war.) This is a great idea. If it's somehow voted out of main space, let's at least put it in Wikipedia space and work out what we can do with the concept. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Keep. Change to base e --SPUI 07:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Keep. Oh, I get it. I'd say keep it, at worst its mostly harmless. -Ld | talk 21:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Keep. Gives a different perspective. Only let it go if it dies from lack of interest/maintenance. Not encyclopedic? hmm... this ain't your grandpa's encyclopedia. Vsmith 23:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong Keep. It's a really good idea, so let's give it a chance to grow. Scott Gall 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Keep. Bryan 08:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Keep. Give the idea a chance. Alfio 15:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Keep. Think of it as a classification system for part of wikipedia, and it's supposed to be fine to have lots of those Philip 03:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. Keep. Ha! Do you people really think the delete votes would win?
  26. Keep. Great idea for keeping perspective on current events / news. Properly used/maitained can help bridge the gap between those parts of Wikipedia and everything else. NB is there (or could there be) a way to put individual (event-related) articles onto a timeline using a {{timeline|1883|Krakatoa}} type approach? approach? Rd232 14:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Keep. Great idea for putting events in perspective, and updated frequently. Andrew pmk 23:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletes

[edit]
  1. Delete, personal essay or original research (since the choice of events to be listed seems arbitrary). Does not illuminate the nature of time or the nature of current events. And is the page is very, very unlikely to be properly maintained. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Interesting idea, but doesn't work for me. And events listed do seem arbitrary as suggested.Sc147 02:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delete. Interesting, but doesn't quite belong here. LostCluster 02:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. delete, not encyclopaedic. And while the idea is nice, it's awfully labour-intensive. --fvw* 08:11, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  5. Delete. I like the idea, but not encyclopedic. MpegMan 09:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delete. The importance of the events on the timeline is subject to the author's personal point of view. While an interesting idea, this has no place on wikipedia. Phils 11:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delete. There are already timelines for all sorts of things and people can go through them in logarithmic progression if they want to. The selection of items listed is POV and it's original research if it's being suggested that there's anything significant in the events. Dbiv 17:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strong delete. Are these really the most important events of the last ten years or just cherrypicking the stories that were most heavily covered by one segment of the US media? As it stands now this list is heavily biased towards America and technology and I don't see any way of fixing it. Issues that may be terribly important to one group (SCO vs. IBM??) will always be considered insignificant to others. --LeeHunter 21:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Delete, fascinating idea, impossible to maintain. Wyss 03:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Delete. Original research, not encyclopedic, no evidence that this idea is used elsewhere and no real point. --G Rutter 11:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Delete. This is pure POV. GRider\talk 18:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Delete. Somebody's personal idea of which events are important, would require repeated editing to keep current. RickK 00:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Delete. Agree with many of the above statements and as proof of it not being updated I came across when there wasn't a change between the 8th of December 2004 and the 1st of January 2005. violet/riga (t) 12:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Delete, as above. —Korath (Talk) 13:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Abstentions

[edit]
  1. Abstain. Not necessarily original research. It's apparently based on an old theory by Heinz von Foerster [1]. --Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Move to Wikipedia: namespace. Ropers 02:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. While an interesting idea, which I don't actually want deleted, this is the sort of thing that is only worth keeping if regularly updated. At the moment, I see gaps of more than a month in the editing history, suggesting that this has not been the case in the past, and since I am not volunteering to patrol it myself I'm unwilling to vote keep. Average Earthman 14:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Abstain. I agree with Average Earthman with the addition that it would need more universal coverage than its current Western focus. Perhaps if more Wikipedians from outside the US could be convinced to contribute? Rvolz | Talk 19:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Could be useful or at least interesting if properly maintained. Like Current events and the year articles, subject to unconscious bias on the part of the editors. -Sean Curtin 01:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't understand the reason for the logarithmic approach. Why chose that approach? What is it supposed to achieve that is different from a non-l timeline? Note that I'm not attacking this approach - I geuninely don't get what it is supposed to do. It would be helpful if the page made more of an effort to explain what it is for, though personally I doubt whether the selection of 'important' events can really be kept NPOV. Mattley 09:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: How about creating separate pages for the most important events on a weekly, monthly and annual basis? O

Running Totals

[edit]

Keeps - 27

Deletes - 14 (+ original request)

Abstentions - 4

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:28, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

21 society

[edit]

Not verifiable or not notable. --fvw* 02:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Rje 02:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified. --Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verified by Cavalier Daily. Noted in relevant student organ. Noted in official University of Virginia library press release as "one of the university?s ?secret? philanthropic societies". Why not list them? Because they don't do Greek letters? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hold on, this secret society gave a press release? --fvw* 03:50, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
      • Well, masonic lodges issue press releases, but that doesn't mean they'll ever divulge the secret word IAOM. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personally, I've been itching to put entries on various student clubs and societies on my campus on the 'pedia, but I'd struggle to make them worthwhile articles. Besides, being secret an' all, they probably don't want the entry :) Lacrimosus 08:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My sister attends UVA and has told me about the 21 society before. Besides, everyone knows about the KKK and they're a secret society.--66.210.102.254 12:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Anonymous votes are generally not counted. Secret societies are, by definition, unverifiable. Delete. RickK 00:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The current article does not cite any references at all! And there have to be references; personal testimony by a member of the society would be deletable as original research. An IP address saying "My sister ... has told me about [it]" is not a verifiable reference unless the sister is named and there is a means of contacting her and assessing her credentials as an informant. Tony Sidaway|Talk says above that he has references but he unfortunately neglects to cite them. I suggest that he add them to the article in proper form. Will reconsider when and if evidence is presented that this is only a pro forma "secret" society (like the Elks or Delta Kappa Epsilon or the Knights of Columbus) and that there is good, open, verifiable information about who is in the society and what they do. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether this is verifiable or not, I do not find it notable enough. Indrian 04:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual campus organizations are not inherently notable, and the secret nature of this one only raises additional viability concerns. RadicalSubversiv E 13:24, 6 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article has already been deleted. Joyous 03:29, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

PHASE-16

[edit]

This item does not seem to be anything even slightly encyclopaedic. SECProto 02:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, possible speedy. Lacrimosus 08:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a speedy to me. Also has complete lack of context. Mgm|(talk) 11:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy no context. Rje 13:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, zero context here, fragment. Wyss 03:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Ftr here is the complete text: Kira fights the people, and Cagilli comes to help. >w< Then, Flay breaks up with Sai and tells Sai how Kira and Flay and together. :o -- Wile E. Heresiarch 07:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • After looking at various articles related to another delete request, I've found out that this means episode 16 of Gundam Seed. There is another page, PHASE-01, just like it. There's a boatload of useless overspecific fancruft at Category:Gundam Seed. 132.205.45.110 19:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • At least they're not all in separate articles. Pray that the SEEDcruft flood slows down as the as the show ages a little. hfool/Roast me 03:37, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ricky Royce

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:13, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Ливай | ☺ 04:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Rje 13:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity. Newfoundglory 13:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 00:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity smurf. Cleduc 07:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above and no content. Salazar 02:50, 10 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Goldin

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:16, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nick Stano

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:19, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vagrant World

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Ливай | ☺ 04:53, 2 Jan 005 (UTC)

  • Keep it, please. It seems very bias that you decide to keep information about big companies, such as Xerox etc and straight away want to delete information about small companies, such as ours. Keep in mind that all information is factual. Another argument for keeping this entry is the entry for Prous Science. Judging from user comments, Prous Science is likely to be kept, so if Prous Science is allowed Vagrant World should also be allowed. Vagrant World does not have to be non-notable, it depends who you ask doesn't it? If there is anything we can do to make the entry for Vagrant World more notable or tolorable to you, please tell us.User:vagrantworld 16:04, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Big companies are included because they affect the lives of millions and are therefore encyclopedic. Small companies do not tend to be included as this isn't the Yellow Pages. Average Earthman 22:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The difference is that Xerox is a well-established company that has become a household name. This makes it notable. Vagrant World is not yet two years old and has, seemingly, no particular accomplishments or noteworthiness. This makes it not notable. If there is in fact something that makes it noteworthy — publishing a book that's become regarded as important in its field, for instance — then that should be mentioned in the article. Shimeru 23:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, it could do with a major clean up though. Megan1967 00:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not (yet) notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: spam. Clean up the redirects too. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable ad. Delete redirects as well. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Greaser 07:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam for non-notable small publisher. Article reads like an outline draft of a press release. — Gwalla | Talk 23:59, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 03:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Timmy Wong

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:25, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:39, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nero (music)

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:34, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  • Delete, either non-notable or if notable the article doesn't say why. It looks to be a text dump from a message board post. Ливай | ☺ 04:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that I know why. Ливай | ☺ 03:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known local band. Dan100 10:02, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstaining for now. Dan100, in what circles are they well-known in? —RaD Man (talk) 11:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to keep based upon Tony Sidaway's commentary. —RaD Man (talk) 19:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jazz fusion band. They've toured in more than one country, 150 gigs in one year, they've had write-ups in the print media of their specialty, you could read about them and attend one of their gigs (although they're on hiatus as of New Year's Eve), and you can buy their albums. This is not just a garage band, they're serious musicians with a presence in their field, so they meet my criteria for notability. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep great canadian Jamband that i'dsay rank in the top ten for canadian jam bands and thats good enough for me. --Jrdoubledown|Talk 16:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've cleanup/npoved. Samaritan 07:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks notable to me. bbx 08:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tuf-Kat 23:58, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with keeping if that's the consensus, but the title needs to change to Nero (musical group) or Nero (band) or something more clear than just "music". Bearcat 05:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Spinboy 05:27, 15 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 03:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Japanpalacehotel.com

[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 04:48, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed. Incidentally, is notability still required? And if it is, have the criteria for notability been changed? I asked because Neutron Stampeder, a weapon used in a "Gundam" series, has recently been judged notable, encyclopedia-worthy, or whatever. Or is there one standard for items in TV serial fiction, and another, tighter one for items in "real life"? Hoary 07:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Generally, whether something is notable is decided by how many people know about it (for most kinds of articles). I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but it does mean that topics related to fictions will be sufficiently notable at a much lower level of importance than other things, as they reach a much larger audience. --fvw* 08:03, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
I think that is a pretty bizarre proposition for a deletion advocate. The real world is way more important than pop culture Philip 03:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just an advertising text dump from the webpage itself. Wikipedia is not a web guide, and this hotel seems pretty non-noteworthy. Ливай | ☺ 10:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Rje 13:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Newfoundglory 13:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Megan1967 00:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an ad, reads like an inept puff piece in a travel rag. Wyss 03:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, rhine 14:07, 5 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 03:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cameron Clark

[edit]

typical vanity page. tiresome. Michael Ward 08:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm curious - how do they IQ test babies? At any rate, no amount of "consulling" can save this entry. Delete. Lacrimosus 08:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I have heard IQ is defined as mental age / chronological age * 100. So at chronological age 0 you can pretty much have any IQ you want. Delete. --fvw* 08:30, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
    • Or your IQ doesn't exist, technically speaking. Can't divide by 0. hfool/Wazzup? 02:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is that pile of dirt all his IQ of 147 can produce? Phils 11:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. Rje 13:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And vote to expand speedy deletion. --Wikimol 14:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as especially bad pimple puff, teen vanity, hoax. Wyss 03:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity smurf. Cleduc 07:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious hoax... after all, if he really had a 148 IQ he could spell "intellectual" in his own vanity article. And anyone who claims Mensa as a point of encyclopedia notablity doesn't understand statistics. DreamGuy 22:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:44, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Platapussman

[edit]

Supposedly a cult icon, based on an underworld book [...] that only sold 2 copies. Looks like vanity to me, but I am not familiar with the cult -- Chris 73 Talk 08:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

RotfY (rolling on the floor yawning); these jocular articles have been submitted before. Delete. Hoary 08:38, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 13:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as crufty, cruftating cruft. Wyss 03:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur, with extreme predjudice. Edeans 22:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone remember Platypus Man, the pointless mid-90s UPN sitcom with Richard Jeni? No? Count yourself lucky. Delete. Samaritan 05:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cleduc 07:31, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

List of famous republicans

[edit]

There is already an article at List of Republican celebrities. This appears to be a copy/paste from somewhere. DCEdwards1966 08:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge does look like a copy and paste, would try to merge it with the current list, also better verification on if they are republicans or not, just because of donation does not mean you are a party member.--Boothy443 08:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: the second person on the list is Republican by virtue of having attended Reagan's funeral. If I remember right, Clinton attended Reagan's funeral. Even if this isn't a copy/paste from elsewhere, it needs a lot more work. Hoary 09:34, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Merge any verifiable information and redirect. Ливай | ☺ 09:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Dan100 10:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 4 days voters' participation should exceed 2% of the active voters population. The decision method that should be used in order to decide what to do should be the majority rule method. Whatever the poll's decision is, it should be irreversible. Iasson 10:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. Rje 13:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect Jm51 18:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is already a pre-existing list for Republicans. Megan1967 00:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 00:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. GRider\talk 18:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Xtra 12:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another ultimately unverifiable list. --Calton 02:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a cut-and-paste of an old version of List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party, which survived its own VfD not too long ago at about the time it was at this stage. Anyone who wants to see this old version of the main list can check the history, and there's nothing much to merge, so this list serves no real purpose. Szyslak 07:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Edeans 22:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Salazar 02:51, 10 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Gl hf

[edit]

dictdef DCEdwards1966 08:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • merge with internet slang (which is a pile of crud, but I daren't touch it) and delete. --fvw* 09:10, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, both terms are already listed seperatly on internet slang, I don't see the point in further cluttering up that page. Rje 13:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to internet slang. Megan1967 00:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Bah, delete the damned thing. Anyone looking for it with a space in the name would surely realise that it was internet slang; that article was responsible for me discovering Wikipedia. Alphax (talk) 13:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Resistance Manifesto

[edit]

Possible hoax. No evidence for this on Google. DCEdwards1966 09:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. The name of the author (John Conner?) sounds like the protagonist from Terminator. Delete as hoax. Alphax (talk) 14:58, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable or a hoax. Probably a non-notable hoax which gets us double our money's worth. --fvw* 16:34, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought. Delete. <KF> 17:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, hoax, and an unhealthy dose of POV to top it off. Ливай | ☺ 19:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Megan1967 00:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible vanity, possible hoax, surely nn. Wyss 03:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn hoax. Cleduc 07:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure what it is, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ISBN 0-96734663-0 Registered with Books in Print. Legit. keep. 06:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)~.
  • ... but not on the shelves at Amazon. I've checked a couple of other catalogues as well. Your assertion is not verifiable. Also, you are 68.7.217.249 the author of the articles under discussion who has been removing the {{vfd}} notices and blanking these VfD discussions. Uncle G 13:39, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

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

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

I count 5 keep as is (one of which was opened since the VfD nomination and is discounted as a possible Wikipedia:sockpuppet), 2 keep as redirect and 9 delete (two of whom took the time to say they would also support the redirect). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, this decision defaults to keep.

Reading through the arguments and supporting links (and filtering out the personal attacks on both sides), I find myself agreeing that, to the extent that Mr Villeneuve has attained notability, it is right now almost solely derivative from his relationship with Permanent Defense. I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor and make this a redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Villeneuve

[edit]

Local political activist of dubious notability. Permanent Defense, the group he founded to combat Tim Eyman (which, as a progressive Washingtonian, I very much appreciate) has gotten a little bit of press, but he's hardly a notable figure in his own right. 320 google hits, a healthy percentage of which are for other people by the same name. RadicalSubversiv E 09:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Delete --fvw* 16:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Permanent Defense, which seems notable. Meelar (talk) 18:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Barring further material, I'm going to stand by my vote. It seems that most of Mr. Villeneuve's notability comes through Permanent Defense, and that he could be addressed in that article. Look at this article: it contains very few details about Villeneuve himself, and a lot of material about the group. Please don't take this as a slur; just as a comment that perhaps the material covered here should be put elsewhere. I'll change my vote if this article is rewritten such that it is clearly about Mr. Villeneuve, rather than Permanent Defense. Meelar (talk) 17:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notability and not much else. Megan1967 00:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, while local political activism isn't inherently notable, the level of interest in this VfD, along with some helpful input I've received from another user, have changed my mind. Keep, the overall issue seems notable in the NW US, and this individual seems to playing an active role. Wyss 00:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 04:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I feel my biography has potential and that none of you have made much of a case for its deletion. Seanorthwest 04:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Editor is the subject of the article; I have responded to his concerns on Talk:Andrew Villeneuve. RadicalSubversiv E 06:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You did not respond satisfactorily in my view. You further disparaged the man and treated him quite contemptuously. Libertas
  • Strong Keep He led an important aspect of opposition statewide to an initiative that would have seen the installation of over 18000 slot machines in Washington State. He succeeded against well-funded, well-organized opposition. This seems clearly notable by any measure, he was quoted representing the opposition in the Seattle Post Intelligencer[2]. The Permanent Defense article reads like a political pamphlet but that's another story. Villeneuve is clearly an important player not just in local politics but statewide and like him or not he warrants an article, with more facts and in more neutral form than the Permanent Defense article. It really should stay. I can help perhaps by adding to it, no one could allege I am sympathetic to his views, I'm not. Libertas
    • I suspect Libertas's vote has less to do with the subject matter than the fact that s/he is upset with me over several unrelated disputes (see User talk:Libertas for details). If Libertas had any knowledge of Washington state politics, s/he would understand that Eyman's latest initiative seriously unpopular almost from the beginning, and that Villeneuve's efforts (which, again, I support) had little to do with its overwhelming defeat. The only well-funded opposition to 892 came from the tribes. RadicalSubversiv E 06:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Radicalsubversiv makes another personal attack in order to diminish my position. I am more familiar with Washington politics than he might think. The initiative received 35% support did it not, hardly dead on arrival. I acknowledge others worked with Villeneuve, particular public sector rent-seekers who wanted to keep the taxes flowing. But to deny Villeneuve's role in it seems churlish and is most probably some nasty internal left dispute within the happy community of Washington liberals and marijuana activists. Radicalsubversiv misuses his role here to prosecute outside battles. I think he protests too much about supporting Villeneuve. I smell a rat. You're wrong about the funding sources btw, but why let facts get in the way of your story. Libertas
  • Vanity page says it pretty clearly. Such a thing is not considered of a good taste. --Menchi 09:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's very true, but it isn't a vanity page. He didn't write it. Libertas
      • I withdraw my comment since that's the case. --Menchi 09:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Hard to tell whether the man is notable in own right rather than just as a part of a campaign. User:Libertas, you seem to be using vfd to pursue a vendetta against another user. Not appropriate. I especially dislike the suggestion implicit in your argument above that since dissension is common on the "Left" no leftist can be trusted to comment on any left subject. Mattley 12:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Given your user page discloses an interest in British trade unions and revolutionary theory, you would indeed know. Please recuse yourself from this decision, left-wing activists, justice must be done and seen to be done. This is indeed a vendetta deletion proposal, it shouldn't be happening at all. Libertas
      • Yeah, and given that it also tells you I live in Birmingham in the UK I'm unlikely to be deeply involved in Washington left politics, wouldn't you say? I see absolutely no evidence that this was nominated in bad faith. The subject of the article is indeed 'of dubious notability' in that his notability outside of the group of which he is a member is questionable. You have not, despite all your contributions to this "debate", provided any evidence of personal animosity between the nominator and the subject. Even if you did it would scarcely make a diference as radical has commented on the article and its merits, as has every other contributor. You on the other hand have continually cast aspersions on other users and made ridiculous ad hominem attacks on users who differ from you in politics. You are bullying other users. Please mend your ways. Mattley 13:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I see a lack of any references or substantiation whatsoever. Delete unless some can be found - David Gerard 13:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • He has been quoted at length in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Not sure if that's enough but I thought it significant. Libertas
      • You deliberately left out the citation for the quote. It was not included in a story, but in a "readers sound off" feature on the editorial page, akin to letters to the editor. RadicalSubversiv E 23:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I deliberately left out nothing, he is clearly a prominent community activist and was first cited in the piece with a very long quote. I am not familiar with Seattle PI and in the circumstances think your unproven assertion is not acceptable. Libertas
  • Redirect to Permanent Defense. The person himself is not notable. RickK 23:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Permanent Defense. I see no evidence of notability yet. I'm also troubled by the use of vfd to persue grudges - take it to the talk pages and keep it out of here. Gamaliel 23:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not just that Gamalie, but a minority of users are claiming that because you vote delete it must be some conspiracry against left activism. I find such a stand by Libertas for example to be particularly insulting, I am neither left nor right and I dont believe politics should be involved in the VfD process. I still havent been convinced Villeneuve is notable enough for inclusion, plain and simple as that.
  • Weak Keep Looks notable but not fully explained - check google - very active. Miffed 23:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipaedia should err on the side of inclusion. If the article is biased, rework it, but minor American political activists seem like fair game to me. After all, we all want Wikipedia to be *the* place for people to read encyclopedia articles about pretty much everything, exept vanity pages.Zantastik 23:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This fellow isn't notable. I'm also troubled by the harassment of users on this page. Mackensen (talk) 07:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks noteworthy. Salazar 02:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete or redirect. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:17, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have moved an extensive discussion to the Talk page. RickK 23:01, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

IITB Bizarre Bazaar

[edit]

This apears to be non-notable. It fails the Google test. If there is important information here, perhaps it could be incorporated into the IIT Bombay article. -- Dominus 09:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not-notable. Many universities have similar services. Rje 13:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --fvw* 16:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wyss 03:48, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. 

all i can say is that i will never stop loving him,

no matter how you delite my words here, i will always have something to say..................................

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 03:54, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

HP 200lx

[edit]

non-notable early 90's PDA DCEdwards1966 09:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wait. WHAT?!? Have you just completely lost it now DCEdwards ninteen sixty-six? What are you thinking? EXTREME KEEP —RaD Man (talk) 11:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Really, this was a bad call and you should've known better. 69,500 Google hits -> [3] —RaD Man (talk) 11:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Should've known better? Is Wikipedia a product catalog for old technology? What kind of impact has this thing had? If it has had any it should be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, its just an outdated PDA. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • By the way, the person that wrote the article linked to his own personal wiki. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • External links can always be changed or deleted, although this one seems to have legitimate information on the topic so I don't see what's wrong with it. What are your criteria for a notable enough PDA that Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ fulfill and this one doesn't? That they're not outdated? I don't see that as being much of a factor since we cover all sorts of things that are outdated (like, say, Chevrolet Biscayne). It doesn't look like an advertisement for the product, it's doing no harm, and it's definitely more encyclopedic than all the Digimon minutiae we insist on keeping. — Ливай | ☺ 18:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • People keep saying it is notable. If so, please add what is notable about it to the article. Otherwise, it is just an old PDA. As far as other PDAs that have articles, if they were to come up one VfD I would vote on their merits. I found this one while patrolling Special:New Pages. DCEdwards1966 22:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I still remember those keyboards and yes it passes the Google Test. Megan1967 00:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The HP LX machines have a substantial following even now. iMeowbot~Mw 12:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I use one. Keep. Dan100 21:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems notable. This one's a keeper. — Ливай | ☺ 02:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • EXTREME DELETE unless some notability is established. DCEdwards1966 14:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Changed to keep. The article now appears to establish some notability for the product. I will still put product articles up for deletion that are only spec sheets. DCEdwards1966 17:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. This product line is notable. GRider\talk 18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • How so? DCEdwards1966 22:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • While the 69,000 google hits cited by RaDMaN do lend a great deal towards the notability of this handheld, so does the number of websites explicitly dedicated to the 200LX. IIRC there used to be a paper-based magazine also for HP Palmtops geared towards the 200LX. As Livajo also points out, we have articles for Tapwave Zodiac, Dell Axim and CLIÉ as well. Most outstanding is that this is a long expired piece of hardware and still it is garnering a relatively very high hit count. There is no point in the senseless deletion of this article, bytes are cheap and Wikipedia is not paper. GRider\talk 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • So, it is encyclopedic because it has fans? Was it the first to use some new technology? Did it do something better than any other PDA? Saying that one article belongs because we have articles about other equally non-notable subjects is not a very good argument. Rather than adding more non-encyclopedic articles we should be removing the ones that already exist. DCEdwards1966 04:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
          • The Grateful Dead has fans, should we delete them too? Please do not twist my words around. Yes, the number of "fans" is a good beacon for how notable something may be. My argument isn't how many fans they have, but that this article has an excellent opportunity for growth and expansion and there is no clear advantage to the slashing and burning of valuable Wikipedia articles. What was yours? GRider\talk 21:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • My point was that the article is a spec sheet. There is nothing about how this particular is different from any other PDA of the time. DCEdwards1966 22:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
              • None of these suggestions are valid reasons for deletion. VfD is not Cleanup. GRider\talk 23:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS NOTABILITY. DCEdwards1966 01:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
                  • It sold well? It is well-known in its field? It has a substantial following of users, and continues to be sold popularly even though HP doesn't actively advertise it [4]? I fail to see how this does not make it notable and what harm is being done by keeping these pages on specific PDAs (has it occurred to you that somebody might be interested in this information and might expect, or be pleasantly surprised, to find it in a comprehensive encyclopedia?) — Ливай | ☺ 12:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • And by the way, the suggestions are obviously not reasons to delete. My suggestions, if implemented, would be reasons to keep. Also, I did not twist your words around. I have been asking for some sign of notability for this product. The only thing you said that even remotely seemed to be answering the question was that fans existed. DCEdwards1966 01:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Alfio 16:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Easily clears the bar Philip 02:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I own one and it seems notable to me. --JuntungWu 04:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I made the topic. =p I own one and have never been able to find a comparible device. Small, qwerty keyboard, rugged, very expandible (at least for its time), runs DOS. All that aside, it was a highly notible landmark in palmtops at the time, and a moneymaker for HP right up until they pulled the plug in preference for ce machines. Yes, it was profitable and they stopped production anyway. This topic should remain because of the historical placement the device has in the history of palmtops. Yes Wikipedia is a catalogue of old products, especially uniquely notible and highly influential ones. Yes I linked to my own work. To that end, i'm willing to donate all the info from there here if there is sufficient interest, although all the various rough notes probably don't belong here. My own website plug is not vanity, I'm quite proud of this device and apparently others are too. -- Sy 22:17, 11 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 01:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Devious" Diesel

[edit]

Character from Thomas the Tank Engine. Possible merge. DCEdwards1966 09:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd love to see this get merged somewhere yeah, though it's no worse than a lot of the f*ncr*ft currently floating around. I'm voting for the merge destination some wise editor is bound to suggest beneath this vote. --fvw* 16:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. not notable. Cleduc 07:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Merge" basically means "keep". It would be interesting to know just how many of these articles which are retained after a VfD where the preponderance of votes is either merge and/or delete, actually get merged, rather than "kept" or "no consensus" (meaning kept). Anyway, as the father of a 5 year-old, and therefore (temporarily) an expert on Thomas the Tank Engine, I can tell you that Diesel is a very minor character, who appears in ony a couple of the episodes, of which there are dozens. By the way, most of the biggest fans of Thomas the Tank Engine can't actually read the Wikipedia, never mind expand articles like this. --BM 21:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very noteworthy, should retain it. Very popular subject. Salazar 02:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User joined Jan 9 2005.
  • Delete, per BM. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:18, Jan 11, 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 The article has been added to WP:DA. Joyous 16:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bridge of Death

[edit]

Python cruft. I'm sure there is somewhere to merge it. DCEdwards1966 09:45, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article has already been deleted. Joyous 04:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

August 27, 1990

[edit]

Everything worth saying here can be found at Stevie Ray Vaughan, August 27 and/or 1990, and nobody is going to search for this as a title, or make a link to this in an article. We ought to just eschew it. Ливай | ☺ 09:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, there's no need to duplicate dates for specific years for exactly the reason mentioned above. We have a standard date format and we should stick to it. Mgm|(talk) 11:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of course it has to go, it's non-standard and unnecessary. Deb 12:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 13:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, a no-brainer, delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk| (Graham) 19:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-standard date duplicating. Megan1967 00:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ugen64 00:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a tribute and a fork. Wyss 03:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete should be nominated for speedy deletion/consensus in VfD later on. Brownman40 07:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. fork. Cleduc 07:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Rafał Pocztarski 10:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh? When? How? Why? Can we have a deletion log entry? Is the voting period over yet? Alphax (talk) 13:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, this wasn't a speedy delete. Could someone undelete please? --fvw* 16:47, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
The speedy deletion tag was added to it by Brownman40 and it was then deleted by Rafał Pocztarski. I have restored it. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is the deletion log entry as requested. Please do not add messages saying “This page is a candidate for speedy deletion, because: there was a consensus to delete the page at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 27, 1990 ” [5] when it is not the case. Thank you. Rafał Pocztarski 05:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • comment: Better yet: don't take speedy tags with invalid reasons at face value. Consensus for deletion on VfD does not make something a candidate for speedy deletion; VfD and CSD are distinctly deparate processes. Doublecheck the validity and applicability of {{delete}} notices before speedying. — Gwalla | Talk 00:32, 9 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:18, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

667 Dark Avenue

[edit]

A page dedicated to someone's message-board. Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 12:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:67.39.75.195 attempted to removed vfd tag. Mgm|(talk) 13:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • And borders on patent nonsense in its current state. Delete -- Ferkelparade π 12:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Rje 13:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable or popular enough for Wikipedia. David Johnson [T|C] 14:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • [Personal attack (however harmlessly intended) on multiple colleagues deleted here by Jerzy (t) 18:01, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC). Intent may have been "Should be embarassing to its creators."] ehm... I mean: delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Ливай | ☺ 19:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are untold thousands of larger forums, and none of those deserve mention either. Xezbeth 22:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somebody in the WWW 05:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. promo. Cleduc 07:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (though I don't fully agree with Xezbeth above) Hoary 08:29, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete Users of the board keep changing the pages and removing the VfD tags, they don't deserve a mention in the Wikipedia Switcher 14:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement for a message board. Please Delete --sp00n17 05:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If you look at the first sentence, it says "a gathering of intellegent people". This is obviously self-promotion. 05:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A promotion. Salazar 02:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: "In summary, a great place to talk about..."? Mmm. [maestro] 06:21, 11 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:20, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Polar Trappers

[edit]

This really should go into a Disney article, or just be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, this has not failed any deletion criteria. There are articles on other Disney animated shorts. Rje 14:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. Xezbeth 14:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think there's a good case to be made for merging these, but I'd rather have it happen as part of policy-making than one article at a time. --fvw* 16:17, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons listed above thus far. —RaD Man (talk) 19:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 03:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We're whalers on the moon... well, it appears notable, but could probably do with a ==See also== Notable Disney Short Films or similar. I'd like to say M/R but I don't know where too. Alphax (talk) 13:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to can it. Dan100 21:07, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: "It was the first cartoon which featured Donald Duck and Goofy together without Mickey Mouse." Samaritan 06:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:09, 6 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 01:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

AJHL

[edit]

Delete

[edit]

Seems non-notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Hands off the sticklers! Delete anyway. --fvw* 16:15, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article doesn't establish notability. Wyss 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. not notable Cleduc 07:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article has no notibility. At all. --WikiFan04 02:24, 20 Jan 2005 (CST)

Keep

[edit]
  • About as notable as the Lower Darling Cabertossing Historical Sticklers Society, I think. Delete for lack of content. Oh wait, it's a substub. Delete anyway. Alphax (talk) 14:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Rewrite since I saw it first looks good, keep and expand. Alphax (talk) 14:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Junior A leagues are notable enough. JYolkowski 17:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Junior hockey leagues are quite important in the hockey universe (and hockey fans need SOMETHING this year.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, notable and worthy of inclusion. —RaD Man (talk) 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 4840 Google hits for "Alberta Junior Hockey League" as a string, and it seems to lead the first page of "AJHL" hits. First page for the long form includes NHL.com draft rankings, articles in general newspapers not only in Alberta but Burnaby, British Columbia, Grand Forks, North Dakota and Madison, Wisconsin. 16 teams each in a major Alberta town or city, playing in arenas with total spectator capacity from 900 to 3500; average over 2100. Samaritan 07:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Noted alumni such as Mark Messier, etc..." deems it notable right thereEarl Andrew 10:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but consider moving to the new Canadian Junior A Hockey League (CJAHL) page and merging the Alberta content with it for the time being. None of the other CJAHL teams seems to have a page. However, the Junior A leagues are important -- alumni include both NHL greats and current NCAA high scorers and the NHL sometimes calls up players from the CJAHL. --Westendgirl 06:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Can we merge this AJHL information with CJAHL, or at least repeat it there? It would mirror the level of detail in the BCJHL section of that article. What's the consensus? --Westendgirl 07:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I support repeating it there (and moving with redirect, as below). Alberta Junior Hockey League is still more than expandible on its own, as well. (Applause for all your work on this, btw, Westendgirl) Samaritan 23:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If kept, then we should change the redirect relationship - AJHL should redirect to Alberta Junior Hockey League. We really should avoid acronyms as title names unless the acronym is more widely known than the thing it stands for. kelvSYC 04:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll second that motion. --Westendgirl 06:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I came across this vote for deletion because I was looking for the article on the league. -- JamesTeterenko 03:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Actions

[edit]

I reversed the redirect, so that AJHL now redirects to Alberta Junior Hockey League. I also pasted the AJHL content into the CJAHL article. I'm not sure the AJHL needs its own page, since the content is scant. Perhaps someone can expand the article? --Westendgirl 07:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I added a redirect to here from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alberta Junior Hockey League, since the actual content in question is now at Alberta Junior Hockey League, and that is where the VFD notice is. -Rholton 19:57, 14 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

AM New York

[edit]

Free newspaper, and doesn't seem notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Depends. Free newspapers can be notable. Metro is, but it seems like it doesn't have an article - Jeltz talk 14:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno, printing a daily newspaper, no matter how trashy, does hint at notability. Anybody from new york care to comment? --fvw* 16:15, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now. —RaD Man (talk) 19:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notability at best. Megan1967 00:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's run by Newsday. See [www.nynewsday.com/other/special/amny link]. --JuntungWu 02:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wyss 03:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A daily newspaper in New York City must clear the bar. Samaritan 05:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Kensho 06:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) I live in NYC and this newspaper is great!. Its very small and has a nice collection of articles. It's like an express version of the NYT or the Post but without the editorials.
  • Keep ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
  • Keep. GRider\talk 18:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phenomenon of free daily newspapers is expected to grow. The Boston Globe just reached an arrangement with the Boston free paper, so it can use some Globe content and will help promote Globe stories. We should not only keep this article, we should add specific articles on the publications referred to generally in Metro International, including the one in NYC. JamesMLane 09:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Salazar 02:59, 10 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

APTA

[edit]

"APTA is the contrived name of a computer software company in Tucson, Arizona". Nonnotable and may be patent nonsense. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Rje 14:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This gives a whole new meaning to patent nonsense! The name "came from the root words Apt and Active. The combination successfully conveys cutting edge, moving forward, ahead and advanced."[6] An accounting software suite may not make for a promising encyclopedia article, but no vote here. iMeowbot~Mw 14:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think "successfully" is highly POV and disputed. Delete. --fvw* 16:12, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Wyss 03:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:33, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:28, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Doesn't seem significant enough to have its own article. Heck, it doesn't even talk about what sort of communications its talking about so I don't even know which article to merge it with! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems rather inactive. Delete. Alphax (talk) 14:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all that common a term, I'd say merge into Telecommunication glossary if we had that, but delete as I'm not really sure I think it's a good idea to create that article. --fvw* 16:08, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete as jargon. Wyss 03:39, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:30, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Clark

[edit]

Doesn't seem notable, the company doesn't even have an article! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. Rje 14:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Delete. Alphax (talk) 14:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 16:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable vanity, ad. Wyss 03:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. Cleduc 07:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most probably vanity... Greaser 06:04, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 04:31, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ord Ibanna

[edit]

This page is about a planet from the Star Wars Episode One Racer game. The game itself doesn't seem to have a page, so I'm sure we don't need a page on every single planet... perhaps it could be merged into an article on the game if there is one or if someone creates one. [it's also a copyvio]. David Johnson [T|C] 14:36, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Redirect has been deleted. Joyous 04:32, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bonnie McKee,

[edit]

This page is a useless redirect to Bonnie McKee. It's obviously not a common mis-spelling. I did mark it as a speedy, but apparently it isn't a speedy candidate. David Johnson [T|C] 14:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a vfd candidate either, move to WP:RFD. Dunc|☺ 15:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know there was a RFD page. Just ignore me :-) David Johnson [T|C] 15:21, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 reached: default to "keep" . Joyous 04:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Reformed Church of Newtown

[edit]

I find the second anon's contribution most dubious; how can they be certain that God does not exist? Have they ever not met them? Anyway, unless I'm mistaken, this is really bad spam, so delete it. Alphax (talk) 14:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • If this specific church was founded in 1731 there might be some notability, though the article certainly doesn't establish it. If it's just the american reformed church then this church is just another one among many. Delete unless/until things get clarified. --fvw* 16:05, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, Megan1967 00:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 03:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward keep, but please: someone rewrite to demonstrate notability. I'm almost certain that this church is notable, but the article only hints at it (There aren't many NY-area institutions with continuity back to the Dutch. How did a Dutch Reformed Church end up with strong Asian connections? There's got to be an article worth having here...) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this important part of its community.Dr Zen 01:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yet another notable, encyclopedic public institution.--Centauri 04:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's said to go back to 1731. How can an institution that has lasted for 274 years not be notable? Philip 02:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although I agree with JMabel: it must be rewritten to establish more factual information Peter Shearan 13:59, 15 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Local train

[edit]

Suggest deletion as this is only a definition, which is adequately made in the article Train Redlentil 14:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, and I don't think this is anything wiktionary would want. Delete. --fvw* 16:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 00:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even a dicdef, just a trivial explanation of two common words. Wyss 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to train#Passenger trains, it's not necessarily obvious what it means. The strange thing is that train links to local trains (as well as Limited-stop, which is somewhat larger than local train and about a similar subject). Maybe there should be a separate article about standard passenger train practices like local/express. I may do this if I feel like it. --SPUI 06:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You can only redirect to articles, not anchors within articles. Technical limitation. --fvw* 16:51, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
      • Eh, I think of it as something that may be fixed in the future. Thus I do it anyway. --SPUI 17:59, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 16:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Afghan Moxammad

[edit]

Fails the Google test. Can't see any reference to this figure. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm going to assume Moxammad is an odd transliteration of Mohammed, but even then it's hard to find anything worthwhile. Google finds a few french texts referring to people of that name, but nothing relating to Qasim Khanate so far. Delete, but if someone has some decent history books on the area, please check and post anything you can find. You running through the substubs for junk by the way Ta bu shi? Good job! --fvw* 15:53, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, can't find anything on Google either. Megan1967 00:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable for now. So Keep it. Wyss 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Google reveals that the Qasim/Kasimov khanate was real, and Talk:Kasimov reveals that other Tatars besides the creator seem to have heard of this guy. I say keep and ask one of them to expand it. - Mustafaa
  • Since people discuss this person I would imagine that he is a real person. Keep. - Jeltz talk 18:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dan100 21:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It really is silly to try to apply the "google" test to a historical figure from a desperately poor country with languages with no universal system of transliteration into English. But unless this man is completely fictional, which is unlikely, he is probably roughly as notable as say the current governor of PennsylvaniaPhilip 02:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but note that most Tatar-related articles might be violating naming policies. Usage in other encyclopedia and on the internet suggests that the names of Tatar rulers are transliterated in English, i.e. Moxammad becomes Mohammad. Zocky 06:56, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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, as no consensus was reached. Joyous 04:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ajayan

[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Is listed on IMDB, but he's only direct one film and that one appears very not notable. Might be a cross-cultural thing, but it was released in canada. Weak Delete. --fvw* 15:56, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 03:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. Strongly suspect undocumented notability. Is there someone we can ask who knows Tamil culture? Google shows some tantalizing hits on unavailable pages. Someone with a little time should probably check this one further. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shows up at [7] and [8], appears notable. RickK 23:31, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, now member of Category:Tamil people and Category:Film directors, and a film-related stub. Expandible. Samaritan 06:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep so long as it can be expanded, otherwise delete. Spinboy 05:27, 15 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Akeatsi

[edit]

No context. No content! Doesn't appear to be notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd be fine with the region getting an article, even if it's only a geo-stub. But this is useless, delete. --fvw* 15:47, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 03:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:39, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 01:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Al babilly

[edit]

No real context, lack of info, seems to be non-notable despite what the article says. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Almost everything I can find is wikipedia mirrors. Delete, but I'll be easily swayed if someone can find some sources documenting notability, the internet isn't the ideal place for verifying these kinds of bio's. --fvw* 15:46, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak Keep. --fvw* 21:15, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Keep. [9] Bush Me Up 23:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wyss 03:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, as with others: can we try getting hold of people who know the relevant cultures instead of trying to guess from Google on things Google doesn't cover well? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well someone's going to have to document notability, and if notability isn't established in the article this is the place to go. And as Megan1967 has managed to find a small piece of evidence that is nonetheless sufficient (at least for me), it would appear the system is working fine. --fvw* 21:15, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dan100 20:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:44, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Alejandro Fernández

[edit]

No context, lack of info, seems to be non-notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Googling suggests notability, the article needs a lot of work though. Keep. --fvw* 15:44, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline notability. Megan1967 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub, it'll grow. Wyss 03:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, as with others: can we try getting hold of people who know the relevant cultures instead of trying to guess from Google on things Google doesn't cover well? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy is a big, big deal in the Spanish speaking media (as was his father). Cleduc 07:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, indeed. Dan100 20:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 23skidoo 06:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this. GRider\talk 18:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not as big a deal as his father Vicente Fernández, but still notable. I was surprised to see that the Spanish-language Wikipedia did not have articles on either singer, and Enciclopedia Libre had only a very stubby article on Alejandro and nothing on his father. gK ¿? 05:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, He is as important as any other artist...I Guess, Although I've Never Heard of/Noticed him until he performed the duet with Beyoncé. Micp 22:09, April 8, 2007 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tila Nguyen

[edit]
  • Delete Probable vanity page User:Joelkirk 16:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that this VfD submission was made by anon User:63.207.13.177 and that user named JoelKirk does not exist (maybe a mistake by User:Joelkirk?). No vote yet. jni 17:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forging signatures is a very bad thing to do though, please don't. Just register the user and log in! --fvw* 17:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable Import racing scene model. Silly girl though. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on other porn stars, why not her? -℘yrop (talk) 17:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't a porn star, it's a girl who models for car advertisements. --fvw* 18:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Comment: JoelKirk does indeed exist, and the link has been corrected. Thanks.--User:Joelkirk 17:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless a good reason can be given not to. —RaD Man (talk) 19:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasonably notable within her field. --LeeHunter 22:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs cleaning up. Megan1967 00:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article provides evidence of professional notability and cultural interest. Wyss 03:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • (Methinks Wile E. Heresiarch understood my vote ;) Wyss 08:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Given that there are a lot of car magazines and all of them feature scantily clad young women (and cars) on the cover, being a cover girl isn't evidence of notability or cultural interest. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person is a celebrity on the internet and a rising star --Rexrexilius 08:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and verifiable. Bryan 16:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Pure keeper. Dan100 21:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep through and through. VfD is not cleanup. Use proper tagging. GRider\talk 18:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons already mentioned. J3ff 22:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep too pretty to delete. Salazar 03:02, 10 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. jni 09:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vincent Benander

[edit]

VFD tags (and deletion talk page) were removed by 68.168.252.34

Sounds suspiciously vanity-related, probably made by some attendee of St. Ignatius High School. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Google only has entries for him on the site of the schools he teaches at. Seems to be a math teacher well liked by his students; i suspect one of the students of making this page, so i can't call it vanity, but he's still unnotable, so delete. -℘yrop (talk) 17:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ungh, delete. --fvw* 17:25, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • delete Rje 17:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this teacher tribute, nn. Wyss 03:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not quite notable. Gazpacho 07:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, Delete. This sounds like a joke on someone's teacher. Radiant! 10:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess that's one way to try to pass your class. Sorry, now you'll need to actually do the work. HyperZonk 17:20, Feb 16, 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. Joyous 04:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Doom House

[edit]

A parody horror movie distributed over the internet. Only of interest to Something Awful goons, and probably only of marginal interest to them. -℘yrop (talk) 17:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 17:25, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Rje 20:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, wp not a web guide. Wyss 03:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn, and WP is most especially not a guide to somethingawful.com. Cleduc 07:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • -- whereas it is a guide to the intricacies of "Gundam", etc. Yawn. Sorry, I mean delete Hoary 08:31, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete, Okay, I'm the guy who wrote the article in the first place, and I see your point. I also agree that the anime pussies should be curtailed. The length that they drivel on about it, get a life, FFS.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:52, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Greek Civil War the right wing view

[edit]

This is created by an anonymous user, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to inject POV in the Greek Civil War and History of Modern Greece articles. I have already pointed to him/her that if one thinks an article is not balanced (in our case the Greek Civil War article), creating another article that reflects his/her way of thinking and that is POV by definition ("the right wing view"...) is not the answer. The original Greek Civil War article should be discussed an edited to NPOV (if we conclude that there is an NPOV issue) through collaboration and consensus. Etz Haim 18:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • rm -rf :D Project2501a 18:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why did everyone suddenly collectively get the idea to split pages and take their POV elsewhere? Delete. --fvw* 18:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not Wikinfo. We do not fork articles for POV reasons. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork of existing article. Ливай | ☺ 19:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • agree with above, and vote delete. If the anonymous article contributor feels there are problems with the Greek Civil War article, he/she should initiate discussions on the talk page for that article, and argue his/her changes. --Woggly 19:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete POV fork. Rje 20:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Forking of articles like this should be speedy-deletable. --BM 20:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed that blatant PoV forks should be instant speedies. Wyss 03:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 05:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork Brownman40 06:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Gazpacho 07:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious POV fork ÅrУnT†∈ 05:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Death to POV forks. However, it was nice of the user to identify it as a POV fork. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am the user who wrote the POV article. I agree that there must be a discussion (Newcomer 01:40, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Joicean

[edit]

Conlang vanity page, apparently written by its creator. Self-promotion, vanity, and unverifiable. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • The usual mix of vanity and hoax, delete --fvw* 18:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverifiable - David Gerard 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hasn't this been here before? Or are there hundreds of these 'languages'? Xezbeth 18:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are hundreds of them. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thousands, I would venture to say. I spent a good chunk of yesterday working on mine (not a simple English derivative), but these sorts of personal projects are not encyclopedic. Delete. Ливай | ☺ 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Xuquhu, errr, Delete. hoax/vanity. Rje 20:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 23:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as, uhm, nn vanity hobby, original research, nonsense, hoax. Wyss 03:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Livajo said. Lacrimosus 06:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rje, except Delete is actually Xuqquhhu. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:03, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Big Bang Critiques

[edit]

IMHO this is just another POV split, this time from Big Bang. Even relevance looks somewhat fishy: A contingent of a few independent researchers and amateurs maintain a community on the internet of people who, for one reason or another, reject the standard Big Bang model.. As always, presentation structure (and eventually article splits) should be done by subtopic, not by POV. --Pjacobi 18:29, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to agree, especially since there's already a criticism section in big bang. The page is getting pretty big though, how about combining this with the evidence for the big bang section and turning it into a separate page? Merge. --fvw* 18:39, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • As the creator of the page I can say that I really don't want this page or its progenitor (non-standard cosmology) to exist as such, but there are a number of people who really want to present a thorough and coarse rehashing of old arguments, no matter how ridiculous they are. The problem is that the non-standard cosmology page was itself an unweildy POV split that included all the information on this page. If you delete this page, you should also consider deleting non-standard cosmology and Open Letter to the Scientific Community. 67.172.158.8 22:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, YES! --Pjacobi 22:44, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  • Don't just delete. Other than that, no strong opinion right now. Pakaran 22:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, agree with fvw's suggestion. Megan1967 00:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete this bloody fork (merge as desired). Wyss 03:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, another vote for fvw's suggestion --Rick Sidwell 03:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Death to POV forks. Merge if you must. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:16, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 04:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Negative6

[edit]

Appears to be straight-up vanity. "Here's the message boards I post to. Here's the games I play. Here's the website I have on a free host." -- Cyrius|✎ 18:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by Fennec, who apparently is less patient than I am :) -- Cyrius|✎ 22:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and extremely so. This is pure rubbish. —RaD Man (talk) 19:19, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

QuakeAID

[edit]

I propose that this vote be closed, with a result of KEEP. Counting the votes is tricky given the flipflopping that has gone on, but I make it Keep:36 vs Delete:26, looks like a clear win for keepers, and IMO deletion should always warrant an overwhelming consensus anyway. If no-one objects, then I will do the changes before 12:00 GMT tomorrow. — PhilHibbs | talk 18:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I stick by my delete vote, but I agree the outcome of this VfD is KEEP. --fvw* 18:38, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

If you stalk my habits, then you know I'm not a deletionist by nature. This article was created by an employee of the QuakeAID corporation. The reason I am listing this article is not only because it is vanity/self-promotion, but also because the authenticity of this company has been brought into question. Please correct me if I'm wrong. —RaD Man (talk)

Note: Please vote below. Discussion should take place on the talk page.

  • For the time being I am casting a vote of extreme delete. —RaD Man (talk) 18:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • After discussing this with Dr Zen, I am changing my vote to that of an extreme keep. This article has significantly developed since its inception by the wouldbe spammers and misinformers at Baou. —RaD Man (talk)
  • Keep. RaD Man is on some personal quest through a series of attacks without making his points clear. He states "authenticity of this company has been brought into question" -- I'd hate to be a stickler here for using the correct language, but there is no question that QuakeAID is "authentic". Perhaps what he is trying to say is that "legitimacy of this company has been brought into question" but he didn't say that. I have asked him to specify what his objection is, but he does not reply. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable company, and Wikipedia is not a billboard ("How to donate to QuakeAID"? Come on, now). Ливай | ☺ 19:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting comment. How would you provide a link on a page which is intended to be informative as the way that someone can donate to organizations collecting donations for victims of the Indian Ocean tsnumanis? QuakeAID is the only organization that is 100% dedicated to providing relief for victims of earthquakes, and has been doing this since July 1998. Because it has done this from Greece, is perhaps why a number of US-based organizations do not record it. However, believe me, there is a world outside the US. Not all charities are US-based and or US-created. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • My objection to the donation link is that it is essentially a solicitation, requesting that the reader pay money, which is frowned upon in an encyclopedia, even for good causes. My vote to delete was based on my opinion that for any organization, there has to be some evidence that it is somehow noteworthy, that it stands out from others and is generally well-known in its field. Just doing charitable work does not make an organization encyclopedic. And contrary to the stereotype, there are actually lots of people in this country who are aware of the world outside the US, including me. I would vote according to the same policy just as readily to a non-notable American company. — Ливай | ☺ 02:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If company and references to it can be found elsewhere with any frequency, keep and note fraudulence. Otherwise delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • By elsewhere you mean where? Which authority would satsify the users of this medium? Tax authorities in Greece, where the organization has been pay tax (no tax breaks in Greece) since 1998? --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please pay special attention to the fact that most mentions are either in reference to the power struggle over quakeaid.com with WIPO or they are "press releases" from baou.com. [10] (Note the article was created by User:Baoutrust. —RaD Man (talk) 18:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you should pay attention to that struggle. You are at risk as well. The facts, which I suspect you have not even considered are that QuakeAID registered quakeaid.com through Network Solutions. During the first year of registration, while the amount paid $70 was still *in force*, Netsol allowed and Register.com was able to permit the registration of the domain name by another person (could be one of the people so fervently objecting to QuakeAID's presense here) and despite numerous legal attempts against Netsol, and then the registrant, it has been unable to recover its property. From my perspective, QuakeAID is the victim. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks Google-bombed. I haven't seen one source mentioning this company that I consider reliable. --kooo 19:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Really, well if you look alittle harder you see that a very nice guy climed a very large mountain in Turkey for us a couple years ago. There's one. Maybe you didn't look hard. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that this organization seems to be non-notable for wikipedia. You really need to read our policies, you've broken a lot of them — such as blanking this vote and other talk pages, personal attacks, ... --kooo 10:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at the present form. —kooo 23:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (changed vote from delete to keep to no vote yet to delete. Final vote.) If NASA finds this organization to be credible, we should too.NASA Brownman40 23:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Bravo. One person looked. See there's two. There are more, but you have to want to find them. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything on that page indicating that NASA finds QuakeAID to be credible or not. —RaD Man (talk) 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • So there you have it. RaD Man is on a personal quest. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right. I'm on a personal quest to find facts. Rather than turning this into an opportunity to provide even a glimmer of substantial evidence that QuakeAID done anything more than sucker people out of their hard earned money, you've spent all your time defacing websites, spamming Wikipedia, and name calling, then following it up with misinformation over at the BAOU fakenews central (Official Wire). Meanwhile, I continue to uncover mountain after mountain of documentary evidence of repeated legal problems and disputes related to any organization even remotely affiliated with Greg Lloyd Smith. The fact that you then attempt to spin the story on Official Wire afterwards does you no favors, just as it never has with any of your past disputes. —RaD Man (talk) 06:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no disclaimer on that page by NASA that says that these links have not been verified. This organization may have pulled wool over NASA's eyes, but then again this link does cast some very reasonable doubt to the claim that QuakeAID is fraudulent. Brownman40 00:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't see that. The NASA page claims to be a search service and describes the QuakeAid as "spider URL." It's not a rating or evaluation any more than Google is. Presumably NASA's search would pick up any organization, credible or fraudulent, that described itself as providing disaster relief. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • QuakeAID is not mentioned on that page at this time. It is in the Google cache of a NASA page though, but not the live version of that page. In any case, this debate is not about whether QuakeAID is legit, it's about whether it should be in Wikipedia (my vote is further down). — PhilHibbs | talk 17:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neither QuakeAid nor Baou is listed by http://www.give.org (BBB's philanthropic advisory serivce), http://www.charitynavigator.org or http://www.charitywatch.org. Absence of a listing means only that the organization has not been investigated. However, these organizations have a wide scope; Charity Navigator in particular has evaluated 3400 charities. Because of the danger of allowing Wikipedia to be used as a promotional vehicle for dodgy charities, I do not believe we should accept articles by charities unless they have been rated by at least one of these three organizations (and the articles should generally contain external links to the ratings). This insures that readers have access to at least one independent evaluation of the charity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) P. S. GuideStar doesn't know anything about QuakeAID, either.
  • Changing vote to weak Keep in present form, provided there is no clickable link to the QuakeAID website. And should care must be taken to keep the article neutral. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent point. Brownman40 02:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Not really a valid point, but I dealt with it above. The organization is/was based in Greece since 1998. Recently, it established a US office. All procedures, including a number of registrations have been initiated to make it possible for tax exemption, etc., but the organizations you mention are all US based. We would not have previously contacted them and as you know, they do not seek out charities. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't there be something on their web site about being a non-profit corporation in the eyes of the IRS? (I can't find such a notice.) Gyrofrog 03:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I guess I didn't actually vote there. So Keep because the article now addresses this concern and others.) Gyrofrog 22:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Already dealt with, but to be specific, QuakeAID's EIN is 20-2072945. Application for tax exemption has been made. The process is long but when complete, details of the tax exemption will be published on our website. However, that does not mean, to use RaD Man's word, that QuakeAID is authentic. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I have an EIN as well. Two, in fact. That doesn't make me a non-profit or charitable organization. So, you've filed for tax-exemption status but it has not yet been approved. I think I've heard enough. —RaD Man (talk) 07:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Furthermore, if the organization was founded in 1998, and its now 2005... Yeeeaaah. Exactly. —RaD Man (talk) 07:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if RaDman thinks it needs to go.... man, someone record this for blackmail later. Seriously, though, delete. hfool/Wazzup? 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Really Keep the new article. Bravo on callling their bluff. hfool/Roast me 23:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That's alittle scary. If RaD Man thinks... Let's hope these two users actually know each other and we don't have another example of Internet love here. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a jocular reference to RaD Man (talk)'s well-known and frequently articulated belief that articles should be deleted only in extreme cases. A VfD nomination by him carries extra weight and deserves careful consideration for that very reason. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Not good reasoning, through. If his judgement is so poor that he can't recognise cases for deletion that are obvious to others, it doesn't make me more confident about this--on the face of it--quite inexplicable campaign to delete an article on a notable subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • That would only be so if one accepted that deletionists generally showed good judgement, which you don't.Dr Zen 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm a mergist. Or was that intended as an insult? In any case the false dichotomy should be evident to you: the complement of the set of extreme inclusionists is not the set of deletionists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • A mergist is a deletionist lite. It wasn't intended as an insult. I don't have a problem with deletionist views. They're held honestly by people who are pursuing the same goals I am. I'm not an "extreme inclusionist", Tony. That's rather rude. I don't belong to any faction. I am an encyclopaedist. I'm for a great encyclopaedia, nothing else. Dr Zen 07:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • For Reene's definition of a mergist, with which I concur, see m:Association of Mergist Wikipedians.
            • If you read the thread you will see that it was another user, Radman, who was described as an extreme inclusionist, and this was advanced as a reason to support his proposal to delete this article. I apologise for not making it clearer to whom I was referring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, seriously nn, probably vanity. Wyss 03:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The article published to this service is 100% factual. There is nothing except facts in it. I defy anyone to provide a single example of any vanity. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • If it were created primarily to serve your interests rather than the interests of Wikipedia's readership, then it would be vanity. Self-serving = it's all about me = vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but mark fraudulent, information is good, regardless if it is good or evilPatcat88 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Somebody in the WWW 06:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If you do that, mark every article as fraudulent OR prepare to be in court. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Ooh, a legal threat. Wow, we've never seen one of those before. Delete, and block the user for making legal threats. RickK 08:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd just like to comment that I have not seen anything to indicate that this is a fraudulent organization. If it is, it should be swiftly reported to the authorities. My main concern is that QuakeAID seems questionable at best, and it doesn't bode too well when the same single user (User:Baoutrust) is spamming Wikipedia with a bunch of other self-promotional articles to boot. —RaD Man (talk) 05:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I have waited for this one. SPAMMING? There are 4 pages. OfficialWire. Note: No one complained about this one. QuakeAID The attack is really from one user RaD Man, who will not specify the objection. Kaith No different than any article about an artist. George Dracos Again, no one objected to that article and it is pretty-much the same as Kaith. I find it interesting that even the rants/attacks are not thorough.
  • Reluctant keep, if only for the fact that WP appears to be the only resource on the web that summarizes this organization's status as a charity. That summary (and pretty much that alone) is a valuable piece of information. --MarkSweep 10:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO, a piece of information is not "valuable as fact" anymore if it's factual accuracy is in serious doubt. However, it is still very "valuable as doubt" as a piece of information though. --Godric 18:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) (since it's back to fact again now)
  • Totally obvious scam. Delete. Gzornenplatz 14:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a definately-non-notable probably-scam. --fvw* 16:58, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Keep (was delete > leaning towards keeping) --Godric 08:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC), (old reasons but still applicable >) still because the factual accuracy of its proclaiming to be a "charitable organization" is seriously questionable, (therefore needed to be illustrated clearly) --Godric 20:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC), and please see detail of my take here.
    • I agree, but that is not a criterion for deletion. The question is, is this a notable, encyclopedic topic? (I don't know the answer to that, see talk page for my opinion on this.) --MarkSweep 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, possible scam. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep, as the article as currently re-written is notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. As for being a scam, though, if it was a notable scam, I wouldn't have a problem with us having an article on it. But it doesn't seem notable to me. - Vague | Rant 04:14, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dori | Talk 04:18, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Consign to bit-bucket. Non-notable, vanity, scam, kitchen sink. Delete this iteration, with the understanding that the article be re-created documenting the allegations against QuakeAID. Mackensen
    • This vote should probably count as a Keep since, the change mentioned is made.  ALKIVAR™ 18:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(talk) 04:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Agree with MarkSweep. This obvious scam should be exposed for what it is. GRider\talk 18:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm reconsidering my vote now, because I've found more tricky dispute cases involving MPC-Trust/Baou-Trust on the web which they eventually lost. I'll add the new findings into Talk page. (note: Baou_Trust has been deleted today, but we can always start a new one for investigation purpose.)
Actually we can't use it due to "Baou_Trust" being copyrighted, and now deleted, right?
  • Keep. Looks better now. +sj + 14:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The prominent WIPO dispute on the QuakeAID.org domain name alone would merit an article. The goings on between the original registrants and various other companies, the Desmond publishing group, etc are also encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • May I inquire on what your definition of Prominence is (see google results)? (only 46 hits on Google!? 12 when duplications' omitted). Even though Google is not the standard index of Prominence, it's indeed very prominent to serve as a meaningful gauging method). But only 12 hits on google is way too low for me to grade that as prominent. By the way, WIPO handles 6000 disputes, involving 10000 domains since 1999 - 2003. A dispute (quakeaid.com) only generates 12 hits on google is way below prominent by my standard. In short, the quakeaid.com WIPO dispute alone does not merit this article's existence --Godric 13:47, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • As you suggest, prominence isn't something determined by Google. The QuakeAID case is cited as a common law precedent in the UDRP guide. It's unequivocally encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed and thanks. Here's the link to the precedent, and I wikified your response above.
  • Delete. If the article is kept, I strongly suggest that we don't link to it the website (much like our policy with wikipediasucks), so we don't raise its Google ranking and so users don't access it as much. ugen64 03:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Either delete or keep with some serious highlights about the (I believe) questionable practices. I trust RadMan on this. Feel free to sue me. --JuntungWu 05:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As I explain on RadMan's talk page, I believe there should be an article on Baou Trust, with this page redirecting to it. I guess that's a keep of sorts. BTW, a list of allegations is not allowed within our policy, unless they have been made by others (no original research) but a listing of the facts is. The article should quote the response from Baou about RadMan in the interests of NPOV (including all views means including theirs too).Dr Zen 05:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make it NPOV - the article has changed considerably, so that the original reason for the RfD certainly does not apply any more. However, the current version is so anti-QuakeAID that it also raises questions about NPOV. -- AlexR 13:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if it is fraudulent then the owner will just re-create it in a few months and it might not get noticed for long enough for someone to donate. Kept as is, people can see the change history and realise that the organisation's validity is disputed. The fact that it is disputed makes it notable. Deciding on what to include in Wikipedia on the basis of its affect on Google Rank is daft. — PhilHibbs | talk 17:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in its current form it serves as a warning perhaps the easiest found on the internet showing the possibility of fraud.  ALKIVAR™ 18:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's not self-promotion. Rhobite 22:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and include a comment in the source to make sure nobody provides a live link. Zocky 04:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reminds me of the Sollog affair, in which instance a terrible piece of advertising was turned into a readable, entertaining article which keelhauled the subject with his own, er, petard. In the manner of Louis Theroux or 'Overnight', a gripping documentary about the obnoxious Troy Duffy, or for that matter Pygmalion, albeit that Eliza Doolittle was likeable even when she was common. For great righteousness the article needs to be a lot more neutral, however. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that said on great righteousness & a-lot-more neutrality, it seems to me that you know exactly what you would do; I encourage you to try to neutralize it a bit, then we all can see the before & after comparison. --Godric 13:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep to the extreme. At first, I thought it was a terrible mistake to list it as VfD, until I read Radman1's VfD description. Now I realise that a lot of hard work went into this article to change it into what it is today. It will help others doing research into this pseudo-charity, although I agree with Godric that it seems a little POV right now. --Deathphoenix 14:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comments

Note: Discussion should take place on the talk page. There is also a great deal of content on the main article's talk page (talk:QuakeAID) as well.

  • Comment The FBI state on Wednesday that "False Web sites have been established that pretend to be legitimate relief organizations asking for donations - one of which contains an embedded Trojan exploit that can infect your computer with a virus if accessed." Under the circumstances, I don't think we should be providing a clickable link to any organization claiming to provide tsunami relief unless it's on a well-vetted list (like the USAID list). The last time I tried to sanitize a link to a dodgy organization—a diploma mill—I was beaten bloody and retired in defeat. Does retaining this article means retaining a clickable link to QuakeAID? Will those who vote "keep" accept the link being tagged "nowiki" or does keeping the article mean keeping a working, intact link? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I voted to keep, but I agree that we shouldn't provide clickable links. The article was probably created to increase visibility of a dubious organization. Since direct links appear to affect things like Google's page rank, I'm against providing a working link in this case. It's one thing to be inclusionist, but that doesn't mean we have do every sufficiently notable spammer's bidding. --MarkSweep 14:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: This is agreeable to me. My only reason for voting keep is to expose these fraudulent spammers for who they really are. GRider\talk 17:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: IANAL, but may I suggest extreme caution in our wording during this encyclopedic process in order to avoid unnecessary legal burden, given that we all somewhat experienced user:baoutrust's vigilance in defending herself. (see here, here, here). Alternatively, we can consult some lawyer friends for extra legal awareness too! --Godric 20:27, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • May I also call for any interested editor to backup all QuakeAID-related GFDL material for future reference, in case of the mysterious Speedy-Delete happens again. Thanks. --Godric 20:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:in all of this meandering discssion I have yet to see the QuakeAid or Baoutrust representative offer any evidence about their past contributions to charities, or how they have spent any of the monies they have collected since 1998 in Quake relief. Would the person from QuakeAid care to provide this forum with any links to such evidence? Such a simple action would quickly move this discussion forward, I would think. (Comment left unsigned.)
    • They've been oddly silent. Usually people who try to promote a business or POV, and see the article get NPOVed before their eyes, get quite upset and try to revert or delete the article, often saying they're "withdraw ing their permission" to use the material they contributed under GFDL. Either the QuakeAid people have cut their losses and given up, which is unusually sensible, or just possibly this is the calm before the litigious storm. Rhobite is right: we need to be very careful to keep the article NPOV. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This ain't yellow pages, it ain't the guide to helping people who have been earthquaked. We don't give recommendations and endorsements. QuakeAID's domain figured in a WIPO case that set a precedent, which makes it encyclopedic. QuakeAID is, for better or worse, listed as a foreign disaster relief organization by at least one US Federal government agency, which makes it encyclopedic. If you think the content of the entry is bad, perform a cleanup. But this is clearly not a case for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • What makes something "encyclopaedic" is that it is treated comprehensively in an encyclopaedia. Please don't encourage the use of "encyclopaedic" as a synonym for "notable", because as is clear to anyone who owns a dictionary it isn't one. Actually, check out WordNet: "broad in scope or content". Like it!Dr Zen 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia is defined at Wikipedia:Encyclopedic.
Yes. A page should have what you'd expect under the title. A subject cannot itself be "encyclopaedic" under that definition.
You yourself have chided people for using the word "notable" in a context unrelated to individual people. I think my usage here is consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that you avoided "notable" by employing what you take to be a synonym. I'm asking you not to because it encourages a reading of "encyclopaedic" that is not borne out by the word's meaning or by our policy. I can only ask, Tony. You're welcome to continue to do it.Dr Zen 07:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Encyclopedic: "Articles need to be of sufficient importance to be included in Wikipedia. This policy attempts to define which subjects are suitable for Wikipedia." (bold and italic are in the original).
My reading of Wikipedia:Encyclopedic is that the subject matter does have a bearing on whether an article is encyclopedic.
Here in VfD we don't (or shouldn't) judge article content so much as whether an article has encyclopedic potential. I disagree that I misuse the term. The encyclopedic criterion does support a more general equivalence of your own restrictive application of the term "notable", although there is rather more to it than a synonym. As a mergist I'm keenly aware that many subjects, while they may have little or no encyclopedic potential, at least for the time being, can be covered very well within articles on more general subjects. VfD is where we make such decisions on an article-by-article basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:03, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 as redirect. Despite the large number of votes to delete, I am exercising my discretion as the closer of this discussion. The redirect is consistent with the VfD decision on QuakeAID above. Since the two companies are closely linked, I consider this a much better outcome. It directs readers to a fact-based page about a suspicious entity. I strongly believe that, had the other voters returned to this discussion thread after the changes to the QuakeAID article and after seeing that this article was redirected to it, they would have amended their votes. Rossami (talk) 04:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baou Trust

[edit]

Self promotion. Also see: George Dracos, Kaith and QuakeAID. —RaD Man (talk) 22:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising. Ливай | ☺ 22:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Rje 00:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's strange that the creator feels the need to link to the trademarks. Suspicious, too. Delete. hfool/Wazzup? 03:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity ad. Wyss 03:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This page was created by an employee of this "company" (see User:Baoutrust). Somebody in the WWW 06:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam, self-promo, non-notable, ... --kooo 18:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dori | Talk 04:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons above Hoary 06:06, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. --Wikimol 08:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was this speedied? GRider\talk 18:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, quote: "14:23, Jan 4, 2005 Neutrality deleted Baou Trust (Per VfD - especially egregious vanity (self-promotion))" --kooo 19:06, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Curiously, why does this get treatment different from the other four self-promotional contributions by User:Baoutrust? GRider\talk 23:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I wondered too, who put the "speedy" tag onto Baou_Trust page? Is there any way to trace this? --Godric 08:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The page Baou_Trust now redirects to QuakeAID due to the new facts unearthed about QuakeAID and its parent and sibling companies. Please reconsider the votes casted. --Godric 22:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to QuakeAID (was keep) - All the sister pages (QuakeAID, OfficialWire, excluding Kaith) now weave together into a clearer picture of reality. --Godric 22:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:56, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kaith

[edit]

More self promotion/spam from User:Baoutrust. See also: [11]. In fact, User:Baoutrust appears to be Katerina Theohari based on the user's edits. —RaD Man (talk) 23:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity in the extreme. hfool/Wazzup? 03:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. When painters or musicians start writing about their influences in a short article, it usually means "not-notable in the extreme". Wyss 03:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. Ливай | ☺ 03:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo, vanity, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion by Katerina Theohari-Smith. --MarkSweep 10:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. promo, vanity, non-notable, self-submission. --kooo 11:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Kooo and others above. GRider\talk 18:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, not notable. Somebody in the WWW 07:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Nuke It  ALKIVAR™ 05:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Godric 23:35, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and her paintings are more fuzzy rather than impressionist anyway. hfool/Roast me 23:34, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 04:58, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cellicon Biotechnologies

[edit]

Non-notable--just some random biotech co--would be an orphan, but author User:Vespristiano, who seems to be on a crusade to create "new" articles, added it to List of United States companies--barely 200 hits. Niteowlneils 20:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, borderline notability. Megan1967 00:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 03:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP != yellow pages. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the high barrier of entry of the bio-tech market, I'd think almost every bio-tech firm was notable, but this company has resisted my every attempt at verifying this. Delete. --fvw* 17:06, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

MTGSalvation

[edit]

From the article: "MTGSalvation is a webpage devoted to the card game Magic: The Gathering...started in September of 2004," --LeeHunter 21:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. You beat me to it. I can find no sign of this website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems a message board by this name exists, but it doesn't look particularly notable, so delete. Ливай | ☺ 21:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 21:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • How does one determine the notability of a webforum? I mean, just curious, but I don't see why MTGNews and Misetings can have articles and a newer site cannot.
  • Delete another vanity ad for a nn website. Wyss 03:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's any consolation, I'd have VfDed MTGNews a long time ago if I thought there was a reasonable chance of it passing. --fvw* 17:06, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Now they have a website --- www.MTGSalvation.com --- so I say don't delete.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Game Boy Evolution

[edit]

It's just a big unsubstantiated rumor. Merely speculation. Delete. Andre (talk) 21:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with the existing Game Boy Evolution section of Handheld game console and redirect. Ливай | ☺ 21:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No such section should exist either, because the Game Boy Evolution is just a rumor. Nintendo has never said anything about it. Andre (talk) 22:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I see. According to the current article, Nintendo has mentioned the existence of another Game Boy model and there is a reported working title, but if there really is nothing verifiable to say about it and even the title is dubious this should be deleted along with that section. Ливай | ☺ 23:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and nn for now. Wyss 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete total speculation. K1Bond007 04:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 17:07, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete, complete and utter speculation by a couple of fansites. If you were Nintendo, would YOU cannibalize your own product line one year after launch? They're not Sega!  ;-) Terrapin 20:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If and when Evolution is announced officially, someone can always write a new article. Is there any worth in maybe adding a line to the main Game Boy article about this speculation if it's widespread enough? 23skidoo 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Except it's not widespread. It's wishful thinking by a couple of fansites concerned over the technical specifications of a rival game console. Terrapin 15:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia should have factual information. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 21:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speculation, delete. - Vague | Rant 04:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable speculation. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:15, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lunny

[edit]

Surname entry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete in accordance with Wikipedia's policy against genealogical articles. Ливай | ☺ 21:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rje 21:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not only is this a genealogy stub, but apparently an inaccurate one. Wyss 03:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't personally agree that an article on a surname is a genealogy article and therefore ineligible, a good article on a surname is worth having (although perhaps more suitable for Wiktionary, which needs all the help it can get). However, in this case it's all academic, as this is definitely not a good article on a surname, giving virtually no information whatsoever. Delete. Average Earthman 14:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, what wikipedia is not. --fvw* 17:07, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:19, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

DeListed

[edit]

Is this a person? It seems like it's more an article about an un-noteworthy website. RickK 21:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Ливай | ☺ 22:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for a website with vanity too. Wyss 03:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist... er, delete. LostCluster 04:40, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jick

[edit]

Vanity advert, doesn't quite meet Speedy Deletion criteria. --Goobergunch|? 21:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity/advertising. Rje 21:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. Ливай | ☺ 22:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure it does. Link platform, bad-faith, silly vandalism... Speedy Delete Wyss 03:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a CSD. --fvw* 17:07, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete one way or another. Just so long as this goes away. IMO, this is a speedy since it doesn't seem to be much more than a placeholder or Google-bomber, but I can wait. - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not vanity, just someone who plays the game. (Though they didn't even put in a link to the game's article.) Still, any biography should go under "Jick's" real name. Raven42 13:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm with Raven42 that it is a KoL user, not vanity. The KoL page has a red link to Jick's real name if someone wants to write a real article about him. --Elijah 19:48, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The creator of a very notable web-game. I'm working on it - please reconsider your votes. Grue 19:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity/ad. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:20, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rowsats

[edit]

Not even fancruft. Orphan page, no Google hits, despite the request to create webpages about him. Not even the linked Geocities page shows up on a Google search. RickK 21:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rje 00:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --AlainV 02:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense, silly vandalism. Wyss 03:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a CSD. --fvw* 17:08, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 19:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. KingTT 05:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:21, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adam's rule

[edit]

This looks like a neologism, and probably vanity too - created by User:Adamgoldberg. Further, it's a non-memorable statement of a pretty basic, non-unique idea. Cdc 22:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Just a re-stating of the basic premise of laissez-faire capitalism, applied specifically to television receiver equipment. Not notable. Delete. Ливай | ☺ 00:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as awkward deep thoughts and bad economics. Quality in the marketplace is determined by the conjunction of price and an operating standard that meets actual demand (the resulting quality may be dreadful or superlative)... moreover, certain mandated quality standards are economically and otherwise justified on the basis of public safety... less than nothing to see here. Worse, the user has named the article after himself. Vanity. Wyss 03:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable restatement of a well-known concept. And if it wasn't, it'd be original research and deletable. --fvw* 17:09, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity neologism. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:47, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:10, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Afrodia

[edit]

Minor anime trivia - there isn't an article for the series this refers to, which further suggests this entry's insignificance, and means there's no place for a merge/redirect. Cdc 22:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as it doesn't have an article to merge into. Rje 00:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The anime itself isn't particularly notable, although I suppose it could rate an article, should someone actually wish to write one. Afrodia, however, is nowhere near important enough to warrant one. Shimeru 06:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's nowhere to merge. --fvw* 17:08, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 05:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Timothy Patrick O'Connell

[edit]

Yet another vanity page. A bit too long to speedy as short and contextless, unfortunately. Shimeru 22:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. Rje 00:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, nonsense (but not quite patent nonsense). Ливай | ☺ 00:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gzornenplatz 00:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity page. Megan1967 00:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as silly pimple puff... vanity. Wyss 03:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I feel sorry for this kid. Brownman40 05:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete see above--Boothy443 05:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity smurf, and I do not feel sorry for him. Cleduc 07:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it's not well written, it is factual--66.210.102.254 12:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:12, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 6 clear delete votes (two by users not signed in), 6 clear keep votes, one redirect and one that I could not interpret. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article defaults to keep.

Noting that voters for both keep and delete raised concerns with the maintenance of this article, I am adding the clean-up tag. I also believe that their concerns justify the retention of the "factual accuracy" tag for now. If those concerns are not able to be resolved in a reasonable amount of time, it may be appropriate to renominate this article for deletion. Rossami (talk) 04:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of people described as neoconservatives

[edit]

List of neoconservatives

I am submitting List of neoconservatives for a vote for deletion based on the reason it is unencyclopedic. I do not see any potential way someone would be able to turn this article into encyclopedic content. After I removed questionable material per Wikipedia policies, the page has remained blanked for almost a day. Brownman40 22:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • You shouldn't blank a page just because you don't like the contents, and I have therefore resurrected it. I vote keep based on the fact that (a) there is a generally accepted neutral definition of what it is to be Neoconservative, so one can check the inclusion of any of the names; (b) lists of people by political belief are acceptable and indeed there are many of them; (c) the list can be useful if it is checked and supported. That does not mean that I think the article as it stands now is all right - it needs a thorough check and copyedit to remove POV. Dbiv 23:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The very article you linked, Neoconservatism (United States), says just the opposite, that "Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed", not to mention the other neoconservatisms. I am abstaining for now because while the current list does not define what is and isn't neoconservative, I see potential encyclopedic value in a list of self-professed neoconservatives, which at least has an objective basis for inclusion. Ливай | ☺ 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The definition may be disputed but as long as you accept that the phenomenon exists then it's reasonable to describe some people as being supporters. Perhaps we could get round any definitional problems by renaming as List of people generally considered as neoconservatives. Dbiv 00:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe I'll be seen as pushing some kind of hobby horse, but is there really a problem with this kind of list? We have other lists of people defined on fairly loose grounds. Going back to Revision as of 21:58, 23 Dec 2004 I don't think it looks particularly bad, and I have no idea why you scrubbed it like this. This should not be done.
    • Elliott Abrams, first on the list, has been described in his article as a "leading neoconservative" for over a year now.
    • John Bolton has been "considered to be a neo-conservative" in his article since it was started in September.
    • The Nation reports that Stephen Cambone, the third member of the list, worked for PNAC, widely regarded as a quintessentially neo-conservative group.
    • Eliot Cohen is described by the Washington Post's Capitol Hill correspondent, Dana Milbank, as a neoconservative.
  • Now I'm aware that just because someone is described by someone else as a neoconservative, does not mean that the label is a reasonable one to apply to that person. However Wikipedia provides means of verifying many of the names and so it seems to me that the list is encyclopedic for those names. No vote yet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Updated vote: Keep in its current location. Brownman40 will just have to reach a consensus with other editors on what "described as neoconservative" means. I suggest that it should mean that they have been described as a neocon by someone who has identifiable and reasonably consistent criteria for doing so. The criteria given neoconservative seems to be pretty stable and critics on both left and right seem to be remarkably consistent in their choice of targets. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't blank the page because I merely didn't like the content. I deleted specific parts which were unverifiable. It is only coincidence that happened to be the whole article, which proves why the article is unencyclopedic. Brownman40 23:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If this article was Neoconservatives I would not vote that for deletion. And if someone wants to put verifiable content in the article in the meantime, that's fine. But unverifiable content may still be edited per Wikipedia rules. Brownman40 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you explain to me why you consider this article to be unverifiable? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The definition of neoconservative is subjective. And unlike having a list of words that start with c, every name on there is disputable and thus removable in an edit conflict. Whereas, the article of neoconservatives can cite sources of the definition and illustrate its history, the list has no such potential. In a best case scenario, the list of neoconservatives would be just a copy and paste of the neoconservatives article. I don't believe anyone can legitimately argue how a single person can stay on that list without a never-ending dispute. Brownman40 00:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have moved the page to a location that I consider to be more appropriate for this kind of list. That someone is a neoconservative is very difficult to verify if he himself says he isn't. That someone is called a neoconservative, and by whom, and with what criteria (if any), is verifiable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I did a quick query of List of liberals. What if we went down that road? I really want us to find consensus on this topic and not have it be a political debate. Brownman40 00:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a political debate as far as I'm aware. I have moved the list to a more suitable location. Most of the people on the list whom I checked (see above) seemed to have been described as neoconservatives by reasonably credible commentators on verifiable grounds. I see that you're still blanking large amounts of the page, but I won't get into a war over this. Can we agree as common ground that close association with an organisation such as PNAC tends to cause political commentators to describe someone as an ideologically neoconservative thinker? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • (Again, editing may continue while a page is on VfD. This does not constitute blanking.) And no, it is not agreed upon common ground that close "association" with PNAC (whatever that means) is a definition for being a neoconservative. That allegation is akin to me saying that members of the Democratic Party are liberals. Brownman40 01:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please re-read my proposal. I ask if we can agree that close association with PNAC (eg working for them, speaking on their behalf, being a member in any capacity) is likely to cause people to describe someone as ideologically neoconservative. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • PNAC's mission: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

Only if neoconservatism was defined as above, (which it is not in our article) would I support your proposal. Currently, your proposal would not suffice as the definition of neoconservatism does not fit with PNAC's mission.

Brownman40 01:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you listed it above yourself. That is what many people mean when they say "neoconservative." The proposal that US dominance is good for the USA and good for the world, and the proposal to pursue dominance by military means. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • One thing that disturbs me greatly is that you continue to claim that your editing was not "blanking", yet at one point you removed every single name from the list. This is what most of us would call blanking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You still don't seem to get it. Those names were deleted because they were unverifiable. Your claims of blanking are back-door attempts to suppress editing. You know perfectly well that the only reason large parts of the article are being edited is because the article is just that bad. Brownman40 01:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know nothing of the sort. I am seeing people whose entries in Wikpedia have described them as neconservatives without controversy. Here you come in, mob-handed, and decide that the description is "unverifiable." These people exist and have been credibly described as necons. So why did you blank the entire list? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • definition of neoconservative on Wikipedia (IMO, badly written. Italics are my comments).

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States.

That sure explains a lot. [/sarcasm]

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

Does not fit with PNAC's mission. PNAC does not state anything in its mission regarding a "lesser social conservatism" or a "lesser dedication to minimal government. Furthermore, PNAC does not state that it is unilateral (mentioned in the article) and its mission does emphasize diplomacy, which pokes holes at the "aggresive foreign policy" theory.

Brownman40 02:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're straining a bit too hard here. Diplomacy is part of foreign policy. You say that PNAC "does not state anything in its mission regarding 'lesser social conservatism'". Nobody has claimed that it did. I'm asking you if you recognise that a close association with PNAC is likely to cause commentators to describe someone as ideologically neoconservative. This list isn't about who is and who isn't a neoconservative, it's about people who are often deescribed as neoconservatives. I'm looking for common ground. Please stop trying to turn it into as debate about who is and who is not a neocon. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • I understand Tony you're looking for common ground, but I disagree that a member of PNAC equating to a neoconservative is common ground per the current definition. The conclusion that PNAC membership equates to neoconservatism is invalid unless we are about to say that being a member of the Democratic Party means you're a liberal. The word usage "people who are described a neoconservative" is merely a weasel word and does not change the dynamics of this debate. Brownman40 02:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You'll have to take this up with whoever else edits the page. I've tried to explain to you that a criterion for someone being called a neoconservative isn't the same as a criterion for someone being a neoconservative. I fail to see how the statement that someone (who is described as being a neoconservative) is described as being a neoconservative is a weasel phrase. They either are or are not described as being a neoconservative. This is verifiable, you can find who said it and look into the circumstances in which he said it and the reasons he gave. Then you put that into an article and you have a list that will be useful in people who have their own ideas about what they think neoconservatism is and can evaluate it accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Look at the weasel word article. This attempt fits that definition perfectly. Brownman40 02:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, impossible to maintain, docking prank bait, not encyclopedic. Wyss 03:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please Delete. As someone who attempted for a few months to remove ridiculous assertions of people who are simply not neoconservatives, I certainly vote for deletion. People in the discussion are trying to get into political debates rather than simply looking to see who is a self-identified as, or frequently externally identified as (through legitimate sources), a neoconversative. The page is useless and damaging to the wikipedia. There is an obsession with the PNAC association (however loose) and the Iraq war that many people cannot get over with. [Weasel word] fits this problem perfectly. Sure, you can find people who call Dr. Rice a neocon, but you can also find idiots who call bill clinton a socialist. Is bill clinton debatedly a socialist??? This page should be revisited in 5-10 years. --Jesse
  • Keep. As on other similar pages, we need to set criteria for what counts as valid citation, indictate citations for all entries. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Jmabel said. It's difficult, but possible, and quite necessary. Lacrimosus 06:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • While I think the page should be deleted, I disagree that it is impossible to have a list of people who are verifiably neoconservative. Wolfowitz, Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Irving and Bill Kristol, Francis Fukuyama, John Bolton, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, and a select bunch of others are DEFINETELY neoconservatives. One problem is that the neoconservatives are a small movement that is decades old, and it is not a broad and consistent political philosophy. The other problem is that many of the editors are attaching a moral judgement to the term (as a codeword for a "cabal" that has taken over the Bush Administration and American foreign policy) and hence - deliberately or subconciously - are trying to label anyone associated with the Bush administration as a neoconservative. So instead of looking to see which legitimate sources have called someone a neoconservative, people on the page are trying to disect the neocon philosophy (which is broad and inconsistent, as to be expected from a diverse group of people spanning decades) themselves and try to determine if an individual is a neocon. Delete the page and if someone is a neoconservative, put it in their page with a description of references to who and why they are called that. --Jesse
  • Keep, nowt wrong with lists. My old Pears Cyclopedia has loads of them. Dan100 20:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another impossible to maintain POV list. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My view is that "neoconservatism" is an absurd ad-hoc conspiracy theory, but the label's widespread use in the press makes it encyclopedic. Only self-identifying neocons and people repeatedly identified as neocons by widely read sources should be listed. Gazpacho 21:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This "article" doesn't belong in WP and is far from NPOV. However, as with Bush family conspiracy theory, I believe there probably won't be a consensus to delete, so a major cleanup is in order. Carrp 13:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the "prominent neoconservatives" section of neoconservatism. The context from this article would help that section. -Sean Curtin 01:31, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 02:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

TorrentStorm

[edit]

Website advert. Ливай | ☺ 23:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this spam. Rje 00:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as spam, fragmented text platform for a link. Wyss 03:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Spam is not a CSD. --fvw* 17:09, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 02:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vans Skate Park

[edit]

Just a skate park in some mall. Far from notable. Ливай | ☺ 23:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Aren't there multiple Vans Skate Parks though? —RaD Man (talk) 23:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm no skating enthusiast so I don't know, but if there are and somebody wants to write about them, great (provided they are noteworthy). This one, however, doesn't seem to be encyclopedia-worthy IMHO. Ливай | ☺ 23:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wyss 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nnn. Cleduc 07:43, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Joyous 02:09, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ghoti phonetic alphabet

[edit]

Searching for "Ghoti phonetic alphabet" returns no Google hits, but I was able to dig up this which the current article looks like it might be based on. In any case the alphabet shows no signs of notability. Ливай | ☺ 23:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a silly thing the author just made up. Incidentally, for them what don't know, "ghoti" is pronounced "fish". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. (It was, of course, George Bernard Shaw who pointed out that in the right circumstances 'ghoti' could be pronounced as 'fish') Dbiv 02:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, original research, silly prank. Wyss 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as Original Research. Ghoti contents that it wasn't Shaw that came up with the word, actually. Ghoti and chips, that's a meal... hfool/Wazzup? 02:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Thryduulf 15:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not complete enough to be worth moving to BJAODN. --Carnildo 21:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love word games and I don't find it amusing at all. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's erroneous as well as junk, agree not even worth moving to BJAODN. ;Bear 17:06, 2005 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_2&oldid=1142647846"