Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 6

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vanity. --Anonymous Cow 03:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: NN --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Beneath the bamboo pole (if it exists) of notability. Delete. -- Hoary 04:25, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity Gorrister 17:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 19:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. BTW, I always get a chuckle out of the ones witout proper capitalization. - Lucky 6.9 23:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Strangely named resume cruft for a minor palyer in US telecommunications. delete--nixie 01:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - CEO's of major telecoms falls within the realm of encyclopedic. Gorrister 17:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with Gorrister. He's been the CEO of Nextel for over 5 years. Suggest article is renamed, perhaps to Timothy M. Donahue, though. Sheldrake 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and retitle. Not sure every CEO of every major corporation is encyclopedic, even one with five years in that position. If Donahue is notable for something more than signing Nextel's sponsorship agreement with NASCAR or working out Nextel's latest merger with another telecom, or if he did something distinctive relative to those actions, those should be added to the article. As it stands it's virtually "just a resume" for "just another exec". Barno 19:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Passes the Pokemon test. Klonimus 01:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to proper naming convention - Timothy Donahue. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep and write something in both his and Nextel's article about 800MHz interference Mozzerati 09:23, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Band vanity. -- 168.156.42.143 00:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That was me. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless info is added to prove notability. --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. They're not claiming they're the greatest band in the world. And Miracle Legion did have a rabid following. Grimfacts 14:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: user's only edit.
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Gorrister 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline case under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Active for more than 10 years, issued more than 2 albums, but apparently on minor indies. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Vlad. Radiant_* 08:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, although not on the largest scale. Fairly well-known band in Connecticut (especially because of its connection to Miracle Legion). I wrote the Miracle Legion article. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
In an Arabic script. I don't know what language. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:13, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Arabic, and looks utterly irrelevant - discusses the practice of celebrating the Prophet's birthday. Seems like a cut-and-paste copyvio - it starts in mid-sentence - but I can't find a source. - Mustafaa 11:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<end moved remarks>

• I assume Mustafaa knows whereof he speaks. It seems easier to handle this here than as an (uncertain) copyvio. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete English articles need to be in... uh... English! --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it would have had 10 more days on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English before being eligible for deletion on that basis.
    • Ah, my ignorance - sorry. Rewritten page definitely looks worthy of a keep now. --Fuzzball! (talk) 06:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Since there really is a language called Bhili, I've removed the Arabic text and replaced it with what information I could find about the Bhili language. Unfortunately, it wasn't much, but at least the article is now in English and is about the same topic as its title. I vote to keep the rewritten article in the hopes that someone who knows more about Indo-Aryan languages than I do will expand my one-sentence substub. --Angr/_(comhrá) 05:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article. I'd say speedy keep if we can, original reason for nomination has been addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. Good work Angr. Dsmdgold 13:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks good now.Gorrister 17:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good rewrite. Nomination withdrawn, as far as I can see. - Mustafaa 19:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Honestly, people dump on tribal languages enough as it is! QuartierLatin1968 02:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, I wasn't "dumping" on a tribal language: we were submitted a dubious piece of text about the Prophet's birthday in an Arabic script. That is what I nominated for VfD. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't say you were. QuartierLatin1968 13:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Original reason for VfD submission has been addressed and mootified. I'll see what I can do about fleshing the article out a bit. Tomer ^TALK 22:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

SINCE there is unanimous consensus to keep the article, and since the vote's required one-week period is now expired, would someone please do the honors and cache this discussion? I'm headed to remove the VfD tag on the article itself... Tomer ^TALK 10:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's only been up on VfD for two days. It was at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English before that. --Angr/_comhrá 11:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm You're correct. My bad. Should I put the flag back? Tomer ^TALK 14:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I guess. I don't think it's likely the page will be deleted, but we should do things by the book. --Angr/_comhrá 15:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There should be a better way to handle situations like this, where clearly bad articles are made into completely different good articles. The Arabic gibberish was an obvious candidate for deletion; the language article is an obvious keep (if someone were to nominate it for vfd now, they would be denounced for making a bad faith nom, and it would likely be speedy kept). In a case like this, 'by the book' sounds like red tape, given that a stranger to this site visiting the article for the first time will see the vfd banner, and may be confused about the legitimacy of the information there. -- 8^D ^gab 15:17, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I agree. Consequently, I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2005 Part Two#Proposal to add policy to VfD, q.v. Tomer ^TALK 21:41, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. – ABCD 21:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instead of replacing the Vfd on this page to reopen discussion about the redirection, which he clearly disagrees with User:Electionworld Electionworld unilaterally reverted back to the current version in complete disregard for deletion process: This discussion needs to be reopened. My vote stands,--SqueakBox 01:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We have similar articles for many countries. I think this is perfectly appropriate breakout. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• As a relative newbie, I have a question about this "process," which SqueakBox is so concerned with protecting. The VFD tag says "Please do not remove or deface this notice or blank, merge, or move this article while the discussion is in progress. " Wasn't turning it into a redirect during the discussion itself a violation of process? The Deletion Policy page says

You must not blank the article, turn it into a redirect, or merge it into another article.

(It seems to happen with some regularity, however.) (BTW, I have nothing to do with this Honduras page and couldn't care less whether it's deleted.) —Wahoofive | Talk 01:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm surprised Guide to Votes for Deletion says that. Redirect during VfD process is not that uncommon, but usually only after a strong consensus has developed, which cannot happen in 3 hours from 3 people. Similarly, moves also sometimes happen by strong consensus. Merging is almost always a bad idea while discussion is still in progress (because it's hard to undo), and blanking is just disruptive. Genuine editorial efforts to improve the article are fine, though. Plenty of articles are salvaged that way during the VfD process -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• BTW there is a much fuller list of parties at Politics of Honduras which no-one has bothered to update. So this is an out of date duplication of Politics in Honduras. I think Cesar and I acted in good faith, where i think Electionworld did not. All he needed to do was restore the Vfd. instead of which he ignored the fact that there was a 3 majority against him and reverts to his version,--SqueakBox 01:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether this was up to date has nothing to do with whether the breakout is a good idea. & I don't really care why Electionworld did what he did. This was newly placed again on VfD, I didn't notice it last time, and I'm voting on the merits of such an article existing, not on an issue of its current text, which is not generally a VfD matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Maybe I acted wrongly to revert the merger, but one cannot say that there is a consensus when only 3 hours of discussion were allowed. I argued my reason in the summary when I reverted: (RV. The debate on the delete page was only open for some hours. This page is part of an extensive series on parties by country, so do not delete it.). Sorry, I thought that that would be enough. It might have been better when I would have restored the VfD template. Whe had this discussion on several pages about political parties in xxx. There was never a majority for deleting of these kind of pages. There is a List of political parties that directs to pages on political parties in every country around the world. Where the Politics of xxx pages are generally meant to provide informtion about politics in a country, the political parties are meant to lead to a more comprehensive information about parties in a country. When I started editing in Wikipedia, these pages were already existings (Honduras was already existing in 2003). Deleting this page would damage a complete and balanced information system on political parties in Wikipedia. Gangulf 06:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (but update with the more complete info on "politics"). Valid member of a series. –Hajor 13:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Soman 15:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Gorrister 17:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Every country has a separate article listing political parties. —Seselwa 19:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 07:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was previously tagged for speedy delete because of "vanity". But since vanity is not a criteria for speedy deletion, I moved it here to VfD. Zzyzx11 01:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; naked vanity that's already begun to attract vandalism, likely from related parties. -- Hadal 03:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Conntent was: ""Haley" "Slafer" was born on March 21st with red hair. Haley has a decidedly "whimsical" taste in music, and enjoys a plethora of bands most have never heard of. Haley enjoys spending longshore money and tagging walls at her local highschool with various cleverly concocted non-obscenities. She watches and relentlessly quotes from "Arrested Development", a television series she has convinced her lowly friend Bernard to be-fan. In the name of a painfully careless and grunge appearence, Haley rarely changes her pants. However, Haley has also mastered the French language, spent ample weekend time teaching undernourished Jewish children how to think, and been a student of music theory for over a decade. "Jealous, Ladies?"" Neutrality^talk 03:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I started translating this from German, but it looks like a hoax to me. Among other things, it claims he won a Grammy, but he gets zero Google hits. Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero google hits for both Mentor Cahani and Sokolaj Cahani. Paradiso 05:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Grammy winners should get Google hits. Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• . . .and ought to appear somewhere on Grammy Awards of 2005, don't you think? And it's not even a consistent hoax: it has him outing himself as gay in 1995, but says that he's been married, apparently to a woman, since 2000—it's not entirely unbelievable, but you'd think it would at least be explained. And Bart Simpson was apparently his guitarist, if I understand that last sentence correctly. Delete, blatant hoax. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 09:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Gorrister 17:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Zzyzx11 01:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Dave the Red (talk) 07:09, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.Gorrister 17:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I also hope she gets into college and finds something better to occupy her time than posting vanity on Wikipedia. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete. i figured if her shift key is broken, why should i bother with mine? - Lucky 6.9 23:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity. Jonathunder 04:50, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Was marked for speedy, but clearly not a speedy candidate. Requires major cleanup if it's worth keeping. No vote.-gadfium 01:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not gameFAQS. Dave the Red (talk) 07:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article on the movie. Dave the Red (talk) 02:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A bunch of random cheat codes is not an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 07:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedia material.Gorrister 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Much better now.Gorrister 13:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Anthony Michael Hall. Out of Bounds was the name of a dreadfully staged 1986 Anthony Michael Hall movie (here's the IMDB page) about an Iowa farm boy who takes a trip to LA and (of course) accidentally gets his suitcase full of checkered flannel shirts switched with one chock full of a drug kingpin's heroin. I say make this an article on that flick. -- 8^D ^gab 07:47, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • ...and it's done. The gibberish is gone and replaced with a movie review, so I respectfully request the vfd be withdrawn. -- 8^D ^gab 10:04, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Keep the film article. Xezbeth 20:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the movie article. Carioca 20:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. N-Man^talk 02:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I updated BD2412's version with a movie infobox and an image of the movie's poster. Sarg 12:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. This band appears to only be known around the Phoenix area. A google search brings up only 4 unique hits under the search terms ""D-SECT" Phoenix band". [1] -- Riffsyphon1024 02:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 09:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity/self-promotion. 1010 Google hits, mostly for various MP3 downloads. Trylobyte 02:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. Forums with over 300 members aren't necessarily notable. Mgm|^(talk) 07:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is NN/Vanity wikipedia doesn’t need bio's on every municipal official ever elected in the US. Crazynas 02:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He was a mayor of a reasonably-sized city. RickK 05:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Current Mayor of a city of nearly 40,000 is notable enough for me. Dbiv 15:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--local mayors are certainly notable, at least if the town is of decent size. This page could be very useful. Oh, and we could use articles on mayors of comparable note from anywhere--this is emphatically not a U.S. thing. Meelar (talk) 16:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- 61 hits for mayor "David Roberts" on Google news is minimally notable to me. Shimmin 17:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--local mayors are notable.Gorrister 17:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep on this one. Elected local govt officials are worthy of note.--Gene_poole 23:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to David Roberts Klonimus 01:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I'd recommend against a rename, as David Roberts is too common a name not to be the subject of future disambiguation. Let's be prepared for it. Mgm|^(talk) 07:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• David Roberts already exists (as a Scottish painter) so that one should be renamed, and a disambig page added. Btw keep this mayor. Radiant_* 08:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. To my knowledge Wikipedia does not, at present, have a policy against having articles on local officials. Mayors of cities are inherently notable . 23skidoo 19:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, nothing on Google, probably just another neologism. Trylobyte 02:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Borderline PN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 09:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 22:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article is one of hundreds on wikipedia about an episode of a television series. I see no reason why this one should be treated like anything special. Sirkumsize 08:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• But why should every television series have every single episode as an article? -- Riffsyphon1024 08:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because wikipedia's whole objective is to be a complete authorative guide to all things even TV shows. I don't make the rules. If you don't like then vote to delete and maybe we can go through and start deleting out the Star Trek episodes. See how long that lasts. lol. Sirkumsize 08:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, that's actually somewhat contested. Its usually the theme Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database vs. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Vote as you will. Sirkumsize 13:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 04:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think that individual episodes should have individaul articles, there is certainly nothing to suggest that this is an episode of note, delete--nixie 05:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to SpongeBob SquarePants - very few TV episodes deserve articles in their own right. Slac speak up! 05:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep. "Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia?" Wikipedia is not paper Kappa 06:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Primarily because "reviews and trivia" on their own are *not* encyclopedic content. What effect has this episode of SpongeBob, as compared to any other episode, had in the world? What information does a reader gain from this article that they could not by stopping down at their local video hire store? (Or maybe we're writing SpongeBob episode articles for the benefit of children in Africa). Slac speak up! 21:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You are free to disagree with Jimbo, but looking things up in wikipedia is a lot more convenient and slightly cheaper than a trip to my local video hire store, and I don't think everyone on the planet has a local video store with Spongebob in stock. Of course, I agree that children in Africa don't need to know about what children in other countries enjoy, they probably don't contribute to WP anyway. Kappa 22:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I think Dr Zen said it best— If the point's just to make another Britannica, why not just buy a bunch of Britannicas and give that to the kids in Africa? Oh well, back to Catfight. —RaD Man (talk) 22:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. It can always become a seperate article if it becomes larger. Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with MGM. Merge for now. WP:FICT once more :) Radiant_* 08:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I vote delete as this episode is nothing special. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Or, at worst, merge into list, but be prepared to split out again if it grows. Meelar (talk) 16:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to SpongeBob SquarePants. Gorrister 17:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not merge. —RaD Man (talk) 18:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost no actual information in the article, and no real possibility to be encyclopedic. --Calton |

Talk 01:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge No information is lost, but the encyclodpedia becomes clutterd. Klonimus 01:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge If/when this episode ever gets a long drawn-out description, then it could be split off to its own article. But not before. linas 05:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlike Pokemon and so on, theres no interest in completing an episode collection. Hedley 18:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's trivia and not encyclopedic. Gmaxwell 20:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with a list of the show's episodes. There's no need to have a page for every show when a paragraph will do. Episode itself does not stand alone. --Asriel86 23:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to an Episodes of Spongebob Squarepants article as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 13:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Article is pointless, inaccurate, and insulting. (unsigned by Smithbcs 16:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC))

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 04:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 09:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - haven't we deleted this one once before?. Gorrister 17:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic.Howabout1 02:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wiktionary. Dave the Red (talk) 07:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary doesn't want it unless it's in the correct script, which this word, being purportedly Hindi, isn't. The article text doesn't supply the correct form of the word, either. Delete. Uncle G 18:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete, foreign dictionary definition. Megan1967 09:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Gobar Gas. The definition is correct, but having a separate article for it is asking too much. Anyway the only context in which it is likely to be mentioned in English is in connection with renewable energy and extracting methane from manure for power in some parts of rural India. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 01:57, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, the term is defined there so merge is unnecessary. Kappa 23:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Noogz marked this vfd on March 12, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 04:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. An alexa rank of 510,286 [2] and a google hit count of 30 unique hits [3] makes me think this site is not notable. Dave the Red (talk) 06:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website. Gorrister 17:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Clark_County, Nevada. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I have to argue that individual water treatment plants are not encyclopedic, nor do they have the potential to be, delete--nixie 04:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just too governmentcrufty for me. RickK 05:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, would fit nicely in an encyclopedia of water supply in Southern Nevada. Kappa 06:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The information would be more useful in either the county page or the city page. Merge and redirect. Meelar (talk) 07:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redir per Meelar. Radiant_* 08:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redir per Meelar. Dsmdgold 13:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• M & R to Clark County, Nevada. Shimmin 17:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable water district. All public institutions are notable. Klonimus 01:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I asked once before if you really believe that the local sewage treatment plant and electrical box on the corner are notable, but you never replied. RickK 22:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• There's this really great step-down transformer on the utility pole behind my house. Thanks to this Wikipedia discussion, it is now famous. Kidding aside, merge and redirect. Agree the info is better served at the Clark County article. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be captions for photos, minus the photos, and thus not making very much sense. Also appears to be heavily based on [4] and [5], which are included as external links. —tregoweth 04:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article, but merge external links to Bridge. Halidecyphon 07:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This could be a somewhat interesting if trivial article, however this content is poorly organized and the article is misnamed (should be Bridge railing styles in California) Delete and wait for someone with a similar obsession to write a good article. Dsmdgold 13:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• If the problem is poor content and naming, why not rename it as Bridge railing styles in California and mark it for cleanup? Deleting, IMNSHO, should be reserved for stuff that doesn't belong on Wikipedia enough. Alba 23:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I realized that I didn't fully explain my vote above. Bridge Railing Styles in the United States is clearly non-encyclopedic. An article on Railings would be justified. If someone wants to write an article on railings, be my guest. However, a cut and paste list of captions to someone's website about bridge railings in California (the true content of this "article") fails to establish notability. --Halidecyphon 15:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Question: The article creator has done a cut-and-paste move of this article to United States bridge designs, possibly in an attempt to sidestep VfD. Now what do we do? —tregoweth 14:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • We VfD the new page. What tedium. --Halidecyphon 07:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds like grounds for speedying, as recreation of deleted stuff. Oh, and delete this. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly, someone created a detailed page describing this Star Wars character. Than someone else, who didn't know how to delete articles, wiped the text, claiming it was all lies. I only got 35 Google hits, 2 from a Wikipedia mirror, the rest from dubious sites. Is this article legitimate or not? If so, would it be notable? I say delete.-LtNOWIS 04:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.-Non-notable Star Wars character - not sure if this person is even in any of the movies/books/comics/games.Gorrister 17:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a real Star Wars character. — Jon Hart
• Delete. Oh, we wouldn't want any, like, fictional Star Wars characters. --BM 17:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia does not list this character in their directory. The encylopedia is well-known for having something on pretty much any term, location, character etc, ever mentioned in the whole Star Wars franchise. Therefore this is probably a made up character, although some recent Star Wars games have not yet been covered in the encylopedia. Ah well, who knows? --Vanguard 11:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Word.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An "album" (collection of tracks) of new rearrangements of the music in the video game Donkey Kong Country, if I understand correctly. there were over 7,000 successful downloads of the album, over 5 terabytes of music. Well, good, but since it's free, and since the marginal price of a download is zero for many people, 7000 seems a low number. (Also, 5TB must be 7000 times something or other: I chose a track at random and it was a digestible 4.5MB. So it's not notable by mere size.) Nothing really wrong with this, but there's no claim of originality (rather, the reverse), and all in all it seems to be under the limbo bar of notability. -- Hoary 05:10, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Delete, cruft. Megan1967 09:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Overclocked Remix. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a legitimate album and it has room to expand into aspects of production and copyright. gren 22:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oklonia 20:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps flagged as a stub until more information is added. For what it's worth notability-wise (if anything), the data figures only represent the downloads via BitTorrent [6]; I'm sure many other people (myself included) downloaded the tracks individually. Also, again, for what it's worth, the project got Slashdotted [7]. CHz 09:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertising, non-notable. RickK 05:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advert/promo. Megan1967 09:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 8 hits on google for "Usman Ashraf" & carpet.Gorrister 17:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 06:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic essay--nixie 05:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Tough call. Well-researched, but ultimately, it's probably better off as a subsection of an existing article somewhere than on its own. Merge if there is an appropriate place to put it (I can't think of anything), otherwise delete. Slac speak up! 05:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Lacrimosus. I think parts of this could be merged with gifted education, or whatever the article on that topic is called. Meelar (talk) 05:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Different from gifted education. But rename to something less unweildy. -- 8^D ^gab 07:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete article, merge some information as follows. This is an article on Isolation, Perfectionism, Underachievement, and Depression. These qualities are not unique to "gifted students". Merge any useful information into the pages for these four conditions, but "Social and emotional issues in the lives of gifted students" is unencyclopedic original research with at touch of POV. I can't think of any truly encyclopedic articles with ten word titles, actually. Perhaps this could become a rule of thumb, nothing over 8 word titles or something.Halidecyphon 08:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree with Halidecyphon. This is a real issue, which has different origins and consequences for gifted children than for others. However, the title is awkward, and I see no reason for keeping it separate from the entry on gifted individuals. Thus, Merge with gifted (and don't merge this with gifted education). Martg76 15:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge information where possible, otherwise delete. This amounts to original research. If some of the factual information can be usefully merged into other articles then by all means let's do it, but the article itself should be deleted. Arkyan 19:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Beautiful article, if only the rest of Wikipedia could read like this. However, its 'discussion' format needs to be rewritten, and I believe it would be more useful as part of the gifted article. (although since a merge has been suggested, it's really academic where it's merged now). --InShaneee 19:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Gifted —Wahoofive | Talk 01:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Gifted article. I loved reading this article. The way the author analyzed different emotions was splendid. However, it does not merit its own article and in order to keep this database comprehensive, merge. - NeevaN 02:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Point of view, possibly original research. Hedley 16:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep, moved to properly capitalized title. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neither allmusic nor artistdirect has heard of them. RickK 05:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment they are on the schedule for the Warped tour, playing nationwide, but they don't have a contract with a major label- I'm not sure how these two facts balance out with respect to the criteria for band inclusion. If it was kept the capitalisation would need to be fixed--nixie 06:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - when your lyrics are posted on all the usual lyrics-websites, that's a pretty good sign that someone other than the band members think they're worth a listen. 5000+ Google hits plus Warped tour equals notability. -- 8^D ^gab 07:34, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • For those of us who are not au fait with contemporary music... could you mention a couple of their songs and a couple of the "usual lyrics websites" that contain them? BTW how do these sites get their lyrics—do they represent an independent evaluation, or can a band post its own lyrics to these sites in order to promote themselves? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep--Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines says that one possible criteria is "has gone on a national tour in a large or medium-sized country". Meelar (talk) 07:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to My American Heart Musicians should not be excluded because they do not have a record label contract. This band appears notable. Halidecyphon 07:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no recorded output, no allmusic listing, band members listed only by their first name... sorry but this article just isnt it. Megan1967 09:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - they are planning to release a record and planning to make a tour. Come back when they've done it. Radiant_* 08:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They meet the notability for music guidelines. The Warped Tour is pretty big, so I believe them to be notable. Robinoke 19:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a product catalog. The original submitter deleted the original content of this page. -- Egil 06:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If the original author blanked it, it can be speedy deleted. Dave the Red (talk) 06:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cameras are encyclopedic. Kappa 07:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Leica camera's are very notable, all models are of historic interest. Klonimus 02:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Question: Are cameras less encyclopedic than mobile phones or the Hasbro Darth Vader Voice Changer (if that turns out to be retained, as seems to be the case)? I noticed a while ago that a vacuum cleaner was voted to deletion. Why keep mobile phones, but not vacuum cleaners or Leica cameras? I am not really strongly advocating either side (and it would perhaps be a bit of a waste to throw out all the Nokia stuff), but it would appear more reasonable to keep cameras which have been around for decades and seem to have a kind of cult following rather than mobile phones which are definitly outdated and possibly forgotten in another year or two. / Uppland 09:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Adding to the above, it seems User:Kappa now has restored the content that the original author removed. Obviously, certain cameras are encyclopedic for various reason. But whole catalogs of all cameras manufactured by a certain manufacturer is not. Especially not so when they seem to suggest that every model should have an article on their own. This is totaslly silly. So delete, or merge with the original Leica article if there is anything of interest there. And yes, if there exists lists of all Nokia phones made, suggesting articles for each and every model, they should certainly be treated likewise. -- Egil 10:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Egil. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products for a discussion on this exact sort of thing. Radiant_* 10:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where does that policy say "merge huge lists into the parent companies' article"?
    • (question by Kappa)
    • That isn't policy, it is a discussion on this exact sort of thing. I figured that people voting on this VfD may be interested in joining that discussion. Radiant_* 12:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — See List of Canon products, Nikon Corporation, and List of Olympus products, for example. So aparently wikipedia is a product catalog. LOL. — RJH 14:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It Wikipedia is becoming a product catalog, this must be corrected. The Canon and Olympus lists are now up on Vfd. Nikon can be fixed in situ. -- Egil 17:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the list but redirect all of the red links to a single generic page on the products. -- 8^D ^gab 15:24, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Keep, but lists of this sort would be better presented, not as lists of mere links, but as lists of short descriptions, in the style of List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. Shimmin 17:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Leica. I have decided to Be Bold and merged the information onto the page but change the list from Wikilinks to normal text, as well as redirected the pair of stub articles to the Leica page as well; I haven't redirected this page to Leica yet though in accordance with the VfD policy. Someone feel free to let me know if this was an unwise choice. Arkyan 19:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Leica, but only the particularly important models. Wikipedia is not a directory. It is not an aid either to purchasing current models nor a guide to collectibles. A very few models are undoubtedly famous. What model(s) did Cartier-Bresson use? But if they're worth describing, they're worth describing in the Leica article, which has plenty of room. And if they're not relevant to the general topic of the Leica, then they certainly don't need separate articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: List of Ford vehicles has existed for more than two years without complaint, and while it could certainly be improved further, seems to be a reasonable article. Is the difference between a car and a camera simply one of personal interest? Shimmin 20:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference would be the ubiquity of Ford as an automobile manufacturer over Leica as a camera manufacturer. There is also the size of the lists to take into account - the list of Ford vehicles is several times as long as the list of Leica cameras. I don't think anyone has anything against the list, it just seems better suited as a part of the main Leica article than a seperate entry. Arkyan 20:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable information.--Gene_poole 06:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I wish I was rich enough to have a Leica. Samboy 08:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree Klonimus 06:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs more info though. -- Lochaber 13:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand into more detailed descriptions of cameras which do not in themselves deserve their own article, and create articles for particularly notable models. -- Karada 13:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I originally tagged this one as a possible copyvio, but the poster has asserted that he owns the copyright. Still, I have trouble seeing the encyclopedic content of this article. Sjakkalle 06:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No encyclopedic value. -- Egil 14:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. Fire Star 20:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-notable MA innovation, likely original research. jni 20:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic and original research. Sarg 15:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 00:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef, non-encyclopic, POV, what else can I say? Delete -- 8^D ^gab 06:46, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef and not even a good one at that. --Angr/_comhrá 07:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 02:01, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd have speedied it probably. Robinoke 19:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be a private forum on forums.gamewinners.com. Your choice of reasons to delete it: not notable, not verifiable, vanity, or some other reason. --Carnildo 07:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What an odd (and unencyclopedic) concept. Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 07:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete. GameWinners.com is non-notable, and even if its article existed, information on its individual forums should exist within it instead of having their own articles. KingTT 07:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Of course it should be deleted, the members are rampant, spamming, humourless, ravaging, incompetent, flaming, trolling, filled with vial, disgusting, perverted thoughts of complete, utter, outright disrespect for any set of rules, standards, etiquete, and can be, at times, entirely retarded. -Local

This page is now preserved 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 edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mis-spelled in any language - not sure what the heck it is, anyway. Plus, there's already an article for Urban planning. -- 8^D ^gab 07:20, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Delete, by the way. -- 8^D ^gab 07:22, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Speedy, very short article with little or no context. —Korath (Talk) 07:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as something vaguely resembling a sandbox experiment. Love the title. - Lucky 6.9 04:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although we don't have explicit policy on deleting such pages, I think such trolling attempts should be removed, and VfD is the most appropriate procedure I know about.

Reason for deletion: trolling attempt by a sockpuppet. --Wikimol 07:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete from the present location, but archive somewhere under talk-namespace. Problem with polls in subpages is that Special:Randompage can find them. jni 08:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is a joke. --Halidecyphon 08:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• NO! The voting is already started, so whats the problem?--Schlesier 11:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless vote on a preposterous (and offensively POV) idea that has no hope of changing current policy. --Angr/_comhrá 12:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Leave. The same rules should apply to all votings. Why should we leave the votes someone likes and delete others? Halibutt 12:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no point in conducting a vote about something that no-one here really has any authority over. If on the off chance Wikipedia actually adopted a policy of referring to Poland's capital as Warschau, is it likely that the rest of the English-speaking community would follow its lead? This whole vote is just one act of silliness perpetrated by someone with too much time on his hands who is treating Wikipedia as a form of entertainment, not as an instrument of disseminating knowledge. Kelisi 15:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a waste of disk space and editors time. Philip Baird Shearer 16:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• With unanimity in favour of the current state, excepting the poll's initiator and another single vote, the results of this poll are obvious already. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless poll. Dave the Red (talk) 18:05, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at least the redirect that's in the article namespace. Really belongs as part of Talk:Warsaw if anywhere. --Michael Snow 18:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - useless poll, created against the guidelines for when a poll should be created by a trolling sockpuppet in order to get people upset. john k 19:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - don't feed the trolls. Ruhrjung 21:05, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - should not be in article namespace. Schlesier has copied it to his own Userpages ("some Polish nationalists try to VfD this page" - hmmm) so really unnecessary (not that it wasn't before). SteveW 00:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A supposedly binding poll in a user's name space is even more absurd than the current situation (which is, I should note, now in the talk name space). john k 06:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, yes the vote is in the talk namespace at Talk:Warsaw/Vote with its own talk page at Talk:Warsaw/Vote talk (i.e. the talk page of a hypothetical Warsaw/Vote Talk article) but it has a redirect in the article namespace at Warsaw/Vote. SteveW | Talk 09:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. One thing I should have mentioned above is that the vote was started with the sole purpose of making a point. --Angr/_comhrá 11:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, disruption. Gazpacho 19:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Disruption, trolling, if not a violation of polling policy then tightening policy would be good. Destructive in this namespace. --Jerzy (t) 15:05, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

• Procedural Question. The title "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Warsaw/Vote" implies this is a vote on deletion of Warsaw/Vote, which was presumably the poll page at the time of nomination but is now (as it should be) a redirect. I suppose this vote continues, but what gets deleted when the vote succeeds?

1. The redirect in article (i.e., default or main) name space
2. The poll page in talk: name space
3. Both

I would support the interpretation that most delete voters are expressing opposition to all 3 of

1. The existence of Warsaw/Vote
2. The existence of Talk:Warsaw/Vote
3. Conducting the poll presently embodied on Talk:Warsaw/Vote

But out of an excess of caution against unnecessary delay, i am explicitly nominating the talk-name-space page, and replacing its poll content with a whine about its existence and a lk to the revision that i'm wiping out. How's that suit your Gordian knot?

--Jerzy (t) 15:05, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

It was already at Wikipedia:Warsaw/Vote when vfd'd (it was since moved to Talk:, and the redirect deleted); the vfd should be valid wherever the text itself ends up. Redirects to stuff being deleted should themselves be zorched per usual. —Korath (Talk) 17:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Krtek76 12:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Tydaj 18:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --ST ○ 20:44, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but it's not a candidate. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's a "real" format with a separate meaning, although Oldies obviously is. 219,000 hits . no vote. Kappa 07:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Music radio. There is a Music formats subheading which this could fit under. Megan1967 08:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and allow for organic expansion. By far and away the most prevalent music programming format on radio in the developed world over the past 2 decades. Thousands of words can be written on the subject in its own right.--Gene_poole 23:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Music Radio; once the thousands of words have been written, it should be broken out again. Radiant_* 08:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Agree with Radiant. Robinoke 19:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Dsmdgold 02:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several Problems with entry:

No potential to become encyclopedic (see WP:NOT) Completely idiosyncratic non-topic

The topic seems to have no other references on the internet and may have been entirely made up by the creator of the page.

I am sorry if i am doing this wrong, the how-to page for VfD is a bit confusing. (Lehk 04:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• Page was nominated by Lehk at the time above, but never added to Vfd. I vote Delete. Hod (Kabbalah) seems to be a legitimate concept, but I can find no mention whatsoever on the web of Mechanos in that context. Unless someone expert on the Kaballah or whatever this is can verify, get rid of it. Meelar (talk) 07:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It has no context or anything. Useless. Robinoke 19:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page. Either userfy or delete. I'd prefer delete, because author has no other contributions in last four month; his use of Wikipedia is solely for self-promotion/vanity. jni 07:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.Halidecyphon 08:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn. VladMV ٭ ^talk 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dsmdgold 02:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 06:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this new entry, and would like fellow Wikipedians' opinions. I'm not involved in this field, but my initial question is that while Mr Byers may have done an excellent job, is his work notable, or is it akin to a regular civil servant's? (In which case it may be vanity.) There are a lot of "Mark Byers" on Google, but 500-odd "Mark Byers" "New Zealand" responses. However, since New Zealand is a small country and the internet is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to credibility tests, 500 can be quite a lot (and more than some local celebrities who are in Wikipedia). Stombs 08:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like a senior enough individual - we have entries for mayors of cities after all, and this man is the head of a national department. Needs tidying and wikifying though. -- Necrothesp 11:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Necrothesp, so I made the changes he suggested. --Theo (Talk) 20:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity, not notable. Anglocide has 11 google hits in total. Thue | talk 08:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity ad. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and/or ad Dsmdgold 13:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Robinoke 19:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 06:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dicdef. Transwiki to wiktionary. Jonathan Christensen 09:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, important topic in negotiation, voting, and deletionism vs inclusionism, has potential for expansion. Kappa 11:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think, then, that it is very fitting that I compromise by voting merge. To negotiation, seems most appropriate. Radiant_* 12:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep MarSch 17:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Would Kappa and/or MarSch please explain what encyclopediac potential this has? I've been wracking my brains, but can't think of anything I'd write in an encyclopedia article about "compromise." Jonathan Christensen 18:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transfer to wiktionary. --Dr Ingel 01:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mistitled, doesn't adress secretaries of foreign affairs in general. fails to provide context and I can't find the Shane Lin in question on Clusty or Google. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only is the title wrong (there's no "fa", it's foreign affairs), it defines a specific person as the secretary without bothering to mention which country is in question. Contrary to what the author might think, his/her country is not the whole world. — JIP | Talk 09:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You would expect someone appointed as foreign secretary to a nation would produce google hits. I can't find any. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we've deleted an article named Shane Lin in the past, or if this is related to a micronation. The mix of antipodean first name and Chinese surname suggests Australian or New Zealand, but their foreign ministers are Alexander Downer and Phil Goff. Average Earthman 10:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Duties include...discuss[ing] repayments and retalliation scenarios....making formal agreements or pacts with other major alliences." I think Shane Lin is the Sec'y of fa for some alliance of RPG players. FreplySpang (talk) 14:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, I've half a mind to move this to Secretary of fa fa fa!. — JIP | Talk 14:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Secretary of sweet fa seems appropriate. Delete. Uncle G 18:40, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 06:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Merge. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Especially so when this list suggests that there should be a seperate article for each model and product. -- Egil 10:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• People who vote here may be interested in joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products.
• Delete as an article about a for-profit company. — JIP | Talk 10:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I hestitate to point out the other kinds of article we'd have to delete if we can't have anything about for-profit companies. Kappa 10:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is far too big to merge with anything. Kappa 10:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is of course no problem describing commercial companies, by all means. My biggest problems are, in order of priroity:

1. This list is made with a Wikilink for every product, which seems to imply there should be separate articles for each product Nokia ever made. This is absurd.
2. The list seems to intend to list every product Nokia ever made. I doubt this is of intertest for an encyclopedia.

For me #1, is totally unacceptable, so under these circumstances, delete. But if people are prepared to keep the information up to date and reliable, and argue this is of interest, then perhaps the article can be kept. But at the very least, all wikilinks to articles for each product should be removed, and any existing content in those article that may exist should be merged and replaced by a redirect. --- Egil 12:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. --Angr/_comhrá 12:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How is this advertising? Andros 1337 12:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ultra strong keep - Not advertising, similar lists already exist on Wikipedia. Andros 1337 12:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Allen3 ^talk 14:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Have your cake and eat it, too. Keep the list, but redirect all of the red links therein to a single generic page on Nokia products. -- 8^D ^gab 15:15, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Keep, but an article on every one of the products would be pushing things. - SimonP 18:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable products. Klonimus 02:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but de-redlink. Information on the individual products (if any) should be put in this list to make it a better list. Radiant_* 08:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And an article on every Nokia product would be a wonderful achievement.--Gene_poole 06:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. an article about every mobile by every manufactuer would be really pushing it, but Nokia is an exception. JuntungWu 09:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a good and informative list btw do they still make toilet paper? -- Lochaber 13:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is information on products. Needs to be kept.
• Keep. I do not even understand why this should be deleted. Jpk 09:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting project, though the links seem a bit much. Musser 23:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Btw 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Jannex 15:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps not all of these phones individually are noteable enough for their own articles, but the list has some interesting information in it. --boffy_b 01:16, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

This page is now preserved 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 made into redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This nomination was started by User:Philip Baird Shearer, I'm completing the process. No vote as yet. Radiant_* 10:38, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• First attempt at this, so I am a little slow! Karl Weidling is a stub with the wrong first name. An article with the correct first name exists: Helmuth Weidling. Philip Baird Shearer 10:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • {{sofixit}} If you want it merged and redirected, you can do that yourself, and you don't even need a VfD vote for it. Simply copy/paste the content of Karl (if any) into Helmuth, and replace the text of Karl with "#redirect [[Helmuth Weidling]]". HTH! Radiant_* 12:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was userfy. – ABCD 01:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, was his user page, but he moved it into article space. Move back to user page. Thue | talk 10:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No VFD needed. Userfy user pages. Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: Userfied the page and deleted the redirects. Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • And it was moved back into the article space again. I've wanred User:Masterchicker that if he does it again, he'll be blocked for 24 hours. RickK 23:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Foaminess" "Bikeman" doesn't Google, which I would expect for an established scientific term. Delete as neologism. Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete perhaps it's supposed to be funny?Halidecyphon 11:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In its current form an advertising sub-stub. I even doubt it'll be worth extending it to a full article. Delete --S.K. 11:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep,One would also then have to remove articles that refer to SAP / Oracle and all similar software systems. In order for Wikipedia to reach it's full potential there should be information on the widest range of subjects possible and opportunities for people to learn more about every subject.
  • Note: user has two dozen edits, most of which related to this topic.
• Delete as ad. Radiant_* 08:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising and also WP is not a software catalog. Sarg 15:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising stub. Could be extended, since it is a public listed company, but unless someone is willing to do it, Delete. --S.K. 11:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, if it was advertising it would say what they do. Kappa 18:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • OK I figured out what they do and added it. Anyway it's still just a stub, not really advertising. Kappa 20:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 08:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good stub. Xezbeth 12:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a publicly listed company. Burgundavia 07:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, add some facts what they do. (I was once unfortunate to get in touch with their shoddy software so they are notable :( ) Pavel Vozenilek 02:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete redirect. – ABCD 22:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Susej was moved out of the article namespace to BJOADN with the assumption that it was a Loof lirpa joke. However, I think it's a sufficiently meaningful and interesting topic that the debate on inclusion in the article namespace is at least worth having. It seems entirely factual to me (unless I'm still being fooled), and isn't badly written. -- Seth Ilys 12:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• yeah, but the only part of it that is actually about "Susej" is the part where it says (paraphrased) "Satanists often reverse Christian symbols. Some of them wear Susej t-shirts as an inside joke." The rest of it is about more general practices of ciphers and reversals. I don't know exactly why you've put it on VfD (what do you want to happen to it?) but I think your best bet is to add a bit about it to ciphers or word games. FreplySpang (talk) 14:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I added it to VfD so that we can have the debate about whether it belongs in the article namespace. If the result is "Keep," it can be moved to Susej, if not, it can stay in the BJAODN archive. - Seth Ilys 20:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — It's not an uncommon term among the deviant life form community. There's even a www.susej.com redirect. :) — RJH 14:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it in BJAODN. It is nonsense. And what is the "deviant life form commuunity"? RickK 23:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It just seems pointless to me. I mean, we all have little saying amongst our friends, but that doesn't mean they ought to be articles. Atrivedi
• Delete It's mostly nonsense, anything useful in it would better covered in other larger articles.Gmaxwell 20:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from main namespace. Silly and not very widespread, as far as I can tell. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable - appears to be vanity/original research. 324 google hits, most of them not relating to this game. --194.73.130.132 15:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. If I'm correct, this was deleted once before. - Lucky 6.9 15:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a bunch of friends inventing a sport. Until it catches on to the extent of being widely famous or properly organised, it's just a private in joke and therefore not notable. Average Earthman 18:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, game vanity. Megan1967 06:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. CDC (talk) 16:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable vanity. Fire Star 20:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 20:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notable? Factual? DJ Clayworth 16:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Not at all. Delete The JPS 16:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, replace with redir to forest bird (or just bird) as common (?) misspelling. Radiant_* 08:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Cleanup. I happened to see this on Recent changes, and it took very little searching to determine that the scientist (not misspelling) is indeed notable. Please note the external link I added to MIT for more information. - Dan Johnson 18:53, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Keep - borderline, but going by the MIT link seems notable enough to warrant an entry. -- Danny Yee 07:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Cleanup. -- 8^D ^gab 08:19, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this guy isn't in the same class as f.ex. Billy Graham. Feydey 16:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement. Pavel Vozenilek 17:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Not an advertisement - it is a non-profit org. As stated, program reaches over 200 countries. John3 05:30, 7 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: user has only three edits, all to this VfD.
  • Non-profit organizations don't advertise? News to me. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert/promo. Megan1967 06:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. Or vanity. Or both. Radiant_* 08:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• The article is factual and I believe it should be kept.
  • Comment by User:213.105.224.14
    • It should be notable, also. Charles Matthews 13:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as proselytizing ad. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products for a general discussion. -- Egil 17:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a list not a catalog. Kappa 18:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The list itself has no value IMHO. Worse, the list suggests articles for every product. That would beyond any doubt constitute a product catalog. -- Egil 04:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the list, but no articles for the products. -- 8^D ^gab 19:53, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Why no articles for the products? I don't see how this is different to any of the thousands of articles on other products like PowerPC G4, Cray-2 etc etc etc. Lupin 22:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The criteria is like for the rest of the encyclopedia. There should be articles for products of a certain notability. I am totally sure that if any, there are only very, very few Olympus products that has a degree of notability that they need an article. This list suggests an article per product, which is obviously nonsense. Perhaps some products are notable enough that they require a list of their own, but in that case they should be merged in the Olympus article. -- Egil 04:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lupin 22:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but de-redlink. Radiant_* 08:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs more info. -- Lochaber 13:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep some Olympus products (the XA, for example) do merit articles because of their notable design achievements. Others don't - but having a list seems an appropriate way to put the notable ones in context. Dystopos 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. -- Egil 17:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a list of encyclopedic products. Kappa 18:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Man, are we repeating ourselves or what? Keep but de-redlink. Radiant_* 08:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the only justification I could see for deletion would be if it is regarded as advertising. However I don't think this is. Corporate web sites only deal with current products. Historical information is useful. T Long 13:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • What?!?!? This is an encyclopedia we are creating. Wikipedia is not the WWW. Relevance, notability and all other qualities for an encyclopedia article must also be considered. I see very little value in this list as it stands. -- Egil 14:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedias are supposed to be encyclopedic. --Gene_poole 06:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is forging new ground as an encyclopedia. Just because traditional encyclopedias don't usually have lists of products (and I'm not sure this is always true - I'm sure examples can be found), doesn't mean that it isn't a good topic for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are to learn facts and product lists are factual (albeit dry to read). And specifically to Canon, lots of people are interested to learn what products Canon has produced. For example, I am here because I was at a festival today and saw lots of Canon products. The first thing I did when I came home was to go to Wikipedia to see if I could identify what models I had seen. Jon Backenstose 00:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Among all the asinine lists here, we find one worth-while and flag for its destruction. Why, oh why? --Asriel86 23:24, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm going to put it in sections as well... -- Lochaber 13:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I am a bit leery of the problem of "free advertising", only in encyclopedic entries such as these will you find both the positive and negative aspects of the products. No, do not turn to a photo magazine; why would the editors of a photography magazine turn away their biggest source of revenue? So, the fact that Wikipedia does not get any money from Canon is exactly why it should have entries for its products. Wikipedia entries would contain information - given a good length of time for photographers and others to make entries - that would not be available on any Canon advertisement. I guess it's a "checks and balances" thing. JR
• Delete Advertising does not belong here does it? Whats so important of a list of products from a company? Shall we start having lists of products from all companys? Foant 20:26, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity "religion". CDC (talk) 16:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Non-notable, delete. Fire Star 20:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. Article is about member of a band ("The Flowers of Romance;" not the original 1976 band) whose article was sent to VfD (see here); subsequent article speedily deleted due to previous VfD vote. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comments: I would have suggested merging this content to an article about the band, if the band itself was notable enough to warrant its own article (i.e., band takes the name of a 1976 punk group and meets with success in the Baltic States). As the editor responsible is apparently a fellow band member himself, then this might be deemed spam or vanity, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The band article was deleted because it was nonsense (they claimed to be from Sealand). The individual members are even less notable. RickK 23:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 06:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 01:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This "article" is at best speculation. Aside from a small list of names, the only text in the article is The following people are or were—probably or definitely—asexual. This is appallingly imprecise and unencyclopaedic. Several users have removed names from the list for lack of evidence or erroneous supposition of their asexuality. Delete with extreme prejudice. Exploding Boy 18:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was briefly involved with this article last November, I think it was, and restored it on the understanding that it might be made encyclopedic, which didn't happen. This list is a complete shot in the dark and currently absent sourcing. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, no potential to become encyclopedic. "Never married, no evidence of sexuality in public record" does not equal "asexual". Lots of us, er, I mean lots of people have sexuality that doesn't make the newspapers and gets misinterpreted as "no alignment" or "unapproved alignment". Barno 19:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wrong on many levels, especially the potentially libellous one... Fire Star 20:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with all the above. Mgm|^(talk) 21:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with all of the above. This is almost certainly unverifiable and/or potentially lawsuit-inducing. Not only that, but I always understood "asexual" to mean "without determinable biological sex", like worker ants. Isaac Newton may have died a virgin, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a male, or else we could add plenty of Popes to this list as well. Meelar (talk) 21:09, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Jaysus, what a worthless excuse for an article. No definition or parameters, just a flat assertion without any proof or argument that the people listed are "asexual". Delete, with prejudice. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone provides sources. Maybe delete it even then. Dave the Red (talk) 03:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The listed people may have been celibate or have had no sex life to speak of for various reasons but they were not biologically asexual. The list would have to include either self-professed asexuals or people born without sexual characteristics whatsoever. As far as I know, there are no known examples of the latter - Skysmith 07:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for far too many reasons to list here. Edward Gorey? 23skidoo 19:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with everything Barno said. Jonathunder 04:59, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Delete postmortem speculation. And come on, "Ho Chimin"? I cannot begin.. --Asriel86 23:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• keep and expand, no just kidding. Delete as vandalism --204.38.191.99 13:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That was me, sorry... WoW 13:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article seems to be a non-notable vanity page without the potential to become encyclopedic. --Miles (Talk) 18:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A local publican. While I appreciate my pints being poured well, it's not exactly an encyclopedic ability. Average Earthman 19:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like a lovely place, but this isn't the place to advertise it. Delete. Fire Star 02:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy for vanity, but vanity is not a criterion for speedy (see wp:csd). Nevertheless, vanity, nn, semi-unverifiable, about a small-time webmaster. Delete. Meelar (talk) 19:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable vanity bio. Fire Star 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article is not encyclopedic, is an orphan, and may not even refer to an accepted concept (I didn't find any references to the topic on Google) Delete. Sheldrake 19:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 20:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete incitement to original research. Fire Star 20:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I read it as a mildly amusing joke by someone who is evidently not a morning person. Maybe BJAODN. Jonathunder 05:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable (0 google hits) borderline advertising. Fire Star 19:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Halidecyphon 22:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm pagan friendly, but this doesn't seem notable. RickK 23:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Advertisement for a local pub, not really encyclopedic content. --Miles (Talk) 19:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like a lovely place, but this isn't the place to advertise it. Delete. Fire Star 02:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advert/promo. Megan1967 06:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (moved to properly capitalized title). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pretty sure this one's a delete. Google: 26 hits. See the bio [8]. - nominated for VfD by Feydey.

• Delete non-notable or vanity bio-stub. Fire Star 20:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)]
• Keep, I think she passes the professor test by controlling programs with a budget of $27 million and two published books. Kappa 20:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I do believe that an associate vice chancellor is the assistant of someone's assistant. Radiant_* 08:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Google turns up a couple hundred pages on her. Burgundavia 07:09, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic. Deb 19:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Is "Sweetheart" really a genuine title? jni 20:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity entry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, delete. Fire Star 20:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Stock Show Queen and sweetheart are electable positions

• Yes, but at a high school level, is it significant? Delete. Silly Dan 22:53, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

This page is now preserved 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 02:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This looks like vanity to me. Rje 19:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV non-notable or vanity bio-stub. Fire Star 20:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Obvious vanity page. -DynSkeet 20:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• You should have used the speedy delete, vandalism i think. Feydey 20:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, definite speedy candidate. If another admin concurs, we should zap it. Fire Star 20:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Dsmdgold 20:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I concur, it's zapped. Mgm|^(talk) 21:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 06:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probable hoax, no references for article, page created and subsquently blanked by anonymous user --AYArktos 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

note also that the creator of the article used the same IP address as the creator of the Simon hollingsworth article which has also been nominated for deletion; (134.226.1.136 [9] & see alsoUser_talk:134.226.1.136 with history of blanking out unfavourable comments) . --AYArktos 20:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

in further suport of deletion, whether or not a hoax, not notable! The debate as to whether the show and Brian Reddy are real and therefore these articles are a hoax is a red-herring. Notability has not been established; quite the opposite since no-one has heard of or remembered it.--AYArktos 00:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Completely fake, probably a hoax from one of a number of major Irish websites. Kiand 20:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. I'd recommend a speedy deletion on nonsense grounds. Fire Star 20:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete suspicious themes. Djegan 21:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. --Angr/_comhrá 04:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, hoax, the articles author now has a history of vandalism. Megan1967 06:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: completely bogus and dubious Googled reference - Pete C ^(talk) 14:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must protest, this is my first article that I have written, and is entirely true. I don't understand what the problem is. I'm quite bewildered by all this actually. Thanks, Paul Fitzgerald.

• Comment: I fixed 4 typos in the article, which looks legitimate, but I'm not familiar with the alleged material (Irish television?), so I don't know whether this is hoax content as alleged. No vote. Barno 14:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, any address with 134.226 as their starting two quads are computers in Trinity College Dublin. Just because someone else used a PAC (Publicly Accessible Computer) in college to post other articles or blank other's doesn't mean this is false.

• Sure. Just as someone showing up on here & posting just one comment under an IP address (as you just have) isn't necessarily trolling. :-/ - Pete C ^(talk) 20:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A reference for the article has now been posted (Devils and angels : television, ideology and the coverage of poverty, Devereux, Eoin (1998), Luton :University of Luton Press/John Libbey Media). The book does appear on the internet, however, whether it mentions Mr Reddy and associated television show would need to be verified. A copy of the book is not held at my local library (the National Library of Australia) and therefore I cannot verify. I think this is now a matter for the Irish Wikipedians to comment on - to date all comments of logged in users have been that they have not heard of Brian Reddy or the show. --AYArktos 22:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just came across this webisit now. The prgram most certainly existed, and I think I should know, Dickie Hickson, the shows host was my father, The house used to be covered in Bolg memoribilia. The show was a huge success, and is relatively well known in Ireland despite what some people have claimed above. I wonder whether or not they are hoaxing you, as I think I can confirm fairly convincingly it exists.

Thanks for your time, and I urge you to vote to save this important site. Joe Hickson.

* Dude, you're scamming - plain and simple. You're also the same person that AYArktos referred to earlier - I just checked the edit history on this page. Anyone any doubts, look at the User_talk:134.226.1.136 and its edit history for this anonymous user (who now calls himself Joe Hickson). Nope - not buying it. Bogus all the way. Oh, and you've been messing about with this page - Pete C ^(talk) 18:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, please! Now Brian Reddy was apparently a "raging homosexual", according to the latest edit by 134.226.1.136. Candidate for Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions - Pete C ^(talk) 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And now this page by the same idiot. Someone block this moron. - Pete C ^(talk) 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax created by a bored student of Trinity College in Dublin. He also created a few others, such as Paul Brennan, which got speedied as patent nonsense. Lupo 16:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I got Reddyb speedied already today. Same IP address - Pete C ^(talk) 16:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am an academic of Trinity College, and despite my IP address (I am on the college network) am of no connection to any of my fellow contributors from Trinity. I am a 51 yr old professor of medicinal chemistry, and thus old enough to be in the 'Bolg' generation. I can confirm to you unequivocally that the programme did exist. Although, I must say I am not quite sure where the Cold War analogy comes from. Overall, however, a wonderful addition to this great encyclopaedic reference. I hope to research, and add more to this article in the future. Please retain it.

• Regardless of whether your statement above is true or not, shouldn't you be posting with your own account rather than using a so-called communal Trinners IP addr, especially one as tainted as it is right now? Furthermore, the Reddy article is still bogus, IMHO. Just like the Reddyb one you posted yesterday that got speedied. In short; give up - the game's over - Pete C ^(talk) 17:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any such Reddyb article, how dare you accuse me of creating such

• Your IP address most certainly did! If you want to dissociate yourself with that IP, then get yourself a username, as suggested, otherwise people such as me will continue to make "mistakes" like this. At the very least, you should sign and date your comments, as has also been suggested. I still cannot believe Trinners is so restricted in IP ranges that the entire college - professors 'n' all - have to NAT through the one IP addr - Pete C ^(talk) 17:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An article about St. Theresa's Youth Group, a youth group at an English church. I'm sure they do good work, but this isn't the sort of thing that goes in Wikipedia--see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Things need to have some sort of claim to fame. Meelar (talk) 20:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

A question (not a vote): what part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that "things have to have some sort of claim to fame"? I'm afraid I haven't time to read it all, but would be interested to see the boundaries of this guideline. Lupin 22:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the sections "not a memorial" ("Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame"), "not a general knowledge base", and "not self-promotion". Best, Meelar (talk) 23:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Meelar, delete. Thue | talk 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Promotion, not notable so on, delete. Feydey 20:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I do not agree with Meelar. Feel it is a worthwhile article keep. Benkov 21:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (This is Benkov's first edit) Dave the Red (talk) 03:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and wish they hadn't also created the identical content at STYG. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Abreviation of a non-notable youth group. Dave the Red (talk) 22:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At a bare minimum it should have been a redirect to STYG anyway. Dang, and I thought this would be a brain of stig vanity article ... linas 06:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fake television show, also an article for its fake presenter, Brian Reddy, is listed seperately. Delete. Kiand 20:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. I'd recommend a speedy deletion on nonsense grounds. Fire Star 20:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete probable hoax. Note, as well as the Brian Reddy article which is linked to this nomination, the creator of the article was from the same IP address as the creator of the Simon hollingsworth article which has also been nominated for deletion; (134.226.1.136 [10] & see also User_talk:134.226.1.136 with history of blanking out unfavourable comments). --AYArktos 21:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

on reflection, the debate as to whether the show is real and therefore the article is a hoax is a red-herring. Notability has not been established; quite the opposite since no-one has heard of or remembered it.--AYArktos 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this should be allowed the full VFD time. It's readable so not nonsense. It's an old show, so I don't expect much Google hits. Can you otherwise prove it doesn't exist?

They claim it was shown as recently as 1987. Not terribly long ago. We have Irish versions of TV Ark over here, and they don't have anything on it. Its against the ethos of RTE. Its not on RTE's site, which has a lot of old material (even some of it in realmedia these days). Theres NO Google hits for it.

If you want me to mail RTE, I will. But *I* can assure you its not real. Kiand 21:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think Google hits were reliable in this case. I know of enough TV shows that are completely misrepresented on the net, most of them children's programs. But if the station that showed it doesn't have a record of it, I'll have to delete as well. Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete suspicious themes. Djegan 21:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. --Angr/_comhrá 04:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 06:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what the problem with this page is. I can assure you it was one of my favourite programmes when I was a young man in the late 1970's. That said, I may have spelt the name wrong as my Irish isn't very good.This might explain the google hits thing. I hope you keep this site up. Thanks, Paul Fitzgerlad (I also wrote the article on Brian Reddy, and am starting to get very confused about how to write entries up in good faith that will stay there)

I've just contacted RTE. We'll see how long they take to respond - its usually an hour or so when I contact them to bug them about reception... Kiand 15:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete: bogus in the extreme. I was a kid in the '70s in Ireland too & there was nothing like this. Nor that Brian Reddy character, either. BTW, why did the original author deface this page? - Pete C ^(talk) 15:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete: I have never heard of this programme and there is no evidence to prove that it ever existed. Not notable if it did. CatCrofts 13:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The issue seems to be the IP address allegedly originates in a college (see VFD Brian Reddy). It may not be the same author. My recommendation to Paul Fitzgerald (if he is a real person) is for him to get a log in and then he will be separate from other users of the IP address. This recommendation has been made several times in the IP user talk page and that talk page has ben defaced from the IP address - ie some users know enough to look for the talk page and edit it. I have also made the recommendation on the Brian Reddy talk page in response to Paul Fitzgerald's query. --AYArktos 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have now created an account. I hope this will sort out some of the confusion. Have RTE gotten back to you yet about the programme? Take care, Paul ( by the way my account name is paulfitz if you need it)

• Delete hoax created by a bored student of Trinity College in Dublin. He also created a few others, such as Paul Brennan, which got speedied as patent nonsense. Lupo 16:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I got Reddyb speedied already today. Same IP address - Pete C ^(talk) 16:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with people? Here's another antichrist: 205.188.116.69. Delete. Feydey 20:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• On the basis of the article as it stands, I'd have to vote delete. Deb 20:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oh dear. Delete original research, at least... Fire Star 20:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Mistitled, should've been at List of possible antichrists, but it should be deleted anyway as original research without references. Mgm|^(talk) 21:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There shouldn't an article about list of "antichrists" or "possible antichrists" which are mostly opinion. --Anonymous Cow 21:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP. I don't see why this needed to break out from antichrist at all. Slac speak up! 21:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Original research and libelous. Dave the Red (talk) 22:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• If names are corroborated (unlikely), it could be merged with Antichrist or moved to List of people accused of being the Antichrist. But probably a delete unless sourced. Meelar (talk) 23:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV nonsense. RickK 23:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything NPOV with AntiChrist, then delete. -- 8^D ^gab 01:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete. I took the liberty of adding this article to BJAODN. (Well, I found the article's title funny anyway!). -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 02:10, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Potentially libelous nonsense. --Angr/_comhrá 04:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV nonsense. Megan1967 06:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Awful. What else can I say? delete. User:Ekimdrachir 00:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV advocacy (unless it is a bad joke). Besides, list of incumbents and potentates not accused to being an antichrist in one stage or another by someone would be rather short - Skysmith 07:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, make it a redir to Antichrist. Radiant_* 08:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, arguably libelous, and I agree with Skysmith about frequency of this POV accusation. I'm not surprised that GWB and Hillary were listed, but the inclusion of Goatse Man amused me. I don't see a need for a redirect under this title or for a BJAODN presence. Barno 14:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment with respect to those concerned about libel, in the U.S. the First Amendment protects folks from being sued for libel for expressing religious opinions. I can stand on the street corner all day long saying John Smith is a sinner in the eyes of my God, and is condemned to eternity in Hell, and so forth, and there's no law that can touch me for it, because I'm expressing an article of faith, not a statement of earthbound fact. -- 8^D ^gab 19:44, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete as currently stands on basis of POV. The fact someone added Goatse Man suggests this is either a joke article or a vandalism magnet. An interesting article on the criteria for being considered an antichrist might be worth having, assuming the sources remain historical and NPOV. 23skidoo 19:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. Everyone knows that to predict the antichrist is to jinx that prediction, and I'm looking forward to his appearance so I can get off this crazy rock. --Asriel86 23:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Way, way POV. Bratsche^talk 04:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands now. Dispensationalist mythology tends to generate all sorts of candidates. The vehement rhetoric of the Protestant Reformation generated another gob of 'em. There might be one or two good lists or articles in there. Without more indication why anyone included is there, this list is not particularly helpful. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

non-notable, vanity. --Jonathan Christensen 20:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 21:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Googled, only 1 hit appears to be related to this garage band. Halidecyphon 22:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 06:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonnotable, vanity.--Jonathan Christensen 21:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 21:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Halidecyphon 21:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Abbreviation of a non-notable youth group. Dave the Red (talk) 22:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Nearly identical article with alternate capitalization Styg was also listed shortly before this one. -- Jonel 23:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. ugen64 06:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nonnotable local radio host.--Jonathan Christensen 21:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• merge with Key 103 or keep. Kappa 21:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge. Note, Steve Penk is a much better article, but in exactly the same situation--a presenter on Key 103 who has been given a page. I propose Key 103 is reorganized to include information on both of these articles, and the rest of the presenters are merely mentioned as other presenters. --Halidecyphon 22:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Steve Penk is not in the same situation. He is a presenter on Key 103 with a well-established career on national TV. VfD tag was removed, I have put it back. Keep real radio host, unless the Radio KoL folk are given summary deletion. Chris 01:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge - with Key 103 But if we merge we have to know where to draw the line. Steve Penk, Timmy Mallett, Chris Evans and JK & Joel (current Radio1 chart presenters) have all come via Key103/Piccadilly - is national status that line. After all Stannage does get quite a large number of listeners and is reasonably well known in the Greater Manchester area. But if we keep the article it does need expanding to include his career. -- Mariocki 22:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Rotary International. —Korath (Talk) 01:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

non-notable local branch of Rotary International, on which we already have an article. By the same guy as the last few I posted; I think there are a few more coming this way, too.--Jonathan Christensen 21:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rotary International--Rotary Club is a generic name. Meelar (talk) 21:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rotary International. Agree with Meelar's reason.

Anonymous Cow 21:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rotary International. José San Martin 23:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rotary International sounds sensible. Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. The use as per this article doesn't appear to me to be related to R.I., however. I think it's just a subclub within a club, so on its own is not notable. 23skidoo 19:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to DCPlusPlus. – ABCD 22:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Information has been merged into DCPlusPlus. Sedulus 21:17, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Redirect to DCPlusPlus Dsmdgold 21:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• If the information has been merged, there must be a redirect to the merged article. Dave the Red (talk) 22:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I've redirected it. Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (four times). [11] —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable deity. POV. Eric119 21:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hoax, more like. Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not a complete hoax Google search for Anton + "one true God of All" returns this, (an advert for a novel about a vampire by one Libby Hodges) delete, not-notable Dsmdgold 22:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, bordering on nonsense. Megan1967 06:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• reverted edit by User:Anton in which he deleted all previous comments and replaced with a bunch of weblinks. If you want to contribute to the conversation, Anton, do it without blanking anyone else's comments. —Wahoofive | Talk 05:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• reverted vandalism, this time by User:64.12.116.7. —Wahoofive | Talk 07:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete dicdef —Wahoofive | Talk 21:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep real things. Also this has potential for expansion to cover preparation, history, and possible risks of parasitic infection. Failing that, merge somewhere. Kappa 22:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this article has encyclopedic potential. However, it amounts to just a hair more than a dicdef at the moment, so i will stubbify it. Halidecyphon (talk) 22:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, many if not most foods are encyclopedic. Tag for expansion. Meelar (talk) 22:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is not a food, just a preparation technique. There is an article on Steak tartare. —Wahoofive | Talk 22:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it would be possible to write an encyclopedic article on the cooking technique; indeed, if anything, I would say that the various dishes should redirect there. I'm not a cooking expert, but that organization makes more sense to me than having numerous duplicate articles. Alternatively, we could redirect other tartares to steak tartare and include that it's performed on other meats there, but I prefer the first option. Meelar (talk) 23:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Steak tartare (very little new info) --AYArktos 22:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Ayarkthos. Radiant_* 08:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I will work on expanding this tomorrow. Different types of foods are prepared tartare including steak but originally started with horsemeat. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now expanded the article adding the widely accepted history based on use by the Mongols and gradual adoption by Germans where ground beef patties also became known as hamburg steak which became hamburgers in the US. No change in vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 09:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. Good job Capitalistroadster! Dave the Red (talk) 19:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all things delicious. --Asriel86 23:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as {{unencyclopedic}} since 21:57, 13 Mar 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 22:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of radio personalities?

Nevermind, it doesn't exist. Abstain. Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. [12] —Korath (Talk) 01:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

patent nonsense. Delete with extreme prejudice. Lupin 22:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, let's not waste time. Gazpacho 22:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. I've also listed the images on the ifd page. RickK 23:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - patent nonsense. Firebug 01:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as {{unencyclopedic}} since 07:54, 17 Mar 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 22:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, extremely short/no context. I would have speedied it but I hoped it might be expanded by the author. Gazpacho 22:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no content at this time, and no prospect of enough to make a full article. Libertarian theories on education should be included in the main article on libertarianism.
• Speedy delete. Oxymoron. 198.82.71.55 00:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as {{unencyclopedic}} since 05:39, 28 Feb 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 22:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, album by Prefuse 73, listed on Amazon, 16K+ Google hits. I added a link to the band page.—Wahoofive | Talk 22:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Contains a user signature and a load of pasted lists. Once cleaned up, the article is notable. Hedley 03:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. -℘yrop (talk) 03:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (two votes are not enough to determine consensus) ugen64 06:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as {unencyclopedic} since 22:59, 28 Feb 2005. Zzyzx11 22:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Optimization (computer science) and redirect —Wahoofive | Talk 22:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as {unencyclopedic} since 12:37, 18 Mar 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 22:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Identity document. Gazpacho 22:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure identity document is the best place for this. After all, a student number is not a document. I'd suggest redirecting to university, perhaps? Or do we have an article entitled transcript (or similar)? I'd support a reasonable redirect, otherwise, keep at least temporarily. Exploding Boy 23:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Transcript exists, but it's not about this. In addition, I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in the U.S., the student number is separate from the transcript--it simply serves as an identifier for the school. Do we have an article on identification number or something of that nature? Redirect there, or to identity document if nothing better is found. Meelar (talk) 01:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• I think , while this is a stub, it's a reasonable one. I vote keep unless a suitable merge place can be found, in which case it should be merged and redirected. Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Meelar. Radiant_* 08:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as potentially encyclopedic. See the page's equivalent in the German Wikipedia at de:Matrikelnummer. Martg76 09:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no information as to which university or even which country this is about. I am sure there are many systems, but what is the big deal anyway? People get various kinds of registration numbers everywhere in modern society - it's a consequence of handling large numbers of people or any other items in databases, and it's trivial. / Uppland 09:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• In that case, perhaps we need an article called Registration number. Exploding Boy 16:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Universities assign student identification numbers to students and I do believe it is possible to write an article about how this is done. Q0 20:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Speaks to the commodification of people in our society. My university used to use Social Security numbers, but too many people complained that the numbers were too readily acquired by potential identity thieves, so they changed to a different student number format. Apparently, this is happening throughout the state. -- 8^D ^gab 02:53, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
• Keep due to lack of good merge targets. Burgundavia 07:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: What is the significant difference between a "student number" and, say, a "public library user number" or an "employee number"? This article either has to be more generic and speak of registration of people in general, or more specific and limit itself to one specific university (system). At the moment it only contains stuff on the Matrikelnummer used at Austrian universities, so why not change the title to Matrikelnummer (Austrian universities)? / Uppland 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now as a useful example of student numbers in use. Hopefully will grow to include other examples. Kappa 09:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Seems a good idea to me... Have examped with some uk info --Spankthecrumpet 22:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as {unencyclopedic} since 08:33, 13 Mar 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 22:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not an internet guide. Gazpacho 22:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as {unencyclopedic} since 19:24, 12 Mar 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 22:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Unencyclopedic indeed. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. FreplySpang (talk) 22:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Feydey 22:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Zzyzx11 22:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Lowercase last name gives it away. Delete Nigel, who seems to exist online. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete Clearly vanity --Lxw21 05:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity. Zzyzx11 22:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Lowercase last name gives it away. Delete virtuoso Jack. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete 20yr old, no acheivements: vanity.--Lxw21 05:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Jack Parks is so notable ("musician, programmer, professional wrestler, virtuoso extraordinaire"), then how did his last name in the title fail to be capatalized? Vanity, undistinguished. - Sango123 00:14, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 thus keep. --SPUI (talk) 14:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV content and title, issues should be mentioned in the main article. Gazpacho 22:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I wrote the article as it is. 1. If the issue is change, why then place it immediately for deletion? Here, that kind of reflexive reaction is called deletionism, and its treated as a kind of wiki-social disease. 2. The issue of POV merits an {{npov}} sticker, not a {{delete}} sticker. 3. On particular issues that need to be changed, are you claiming that there is not enough factual material related to criticisms and claims of the Iraq War and its execution? Certainly there's an argument for inclusion in the "main article", but LIC, there is no "main article," and whatever articles there are, are in need of organization. -==SV 23:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Of course there's a main article, Steve. You linked to it yourself. When the title of the article itself is POV, and the article presents POV about another article's subject as fact, that's a POV fork and should be considered for deletion. Gazpacho

Your claiming its a "pov fork" - I think others will see it as simply focusing on a very valid aspect of the war, even if it was a mistake to use "mistake" in the title. :) Comensa la vota! -==SV 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, inherently POV. RickK 23:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. The topic is worthy of discussion, but the place is at 2003 Invasion of Iraq and/or Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. And indeed that has already happened to a certain extent. --bainer 23:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork; noteworthy criticisms of the Iraq war/occupation should be included in the relevant articles instead. Firebug 01:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Inherently flawed title. Noteworthy public discussion of the war's merits or lack thereof belongs in more general articles which already exist. Delete. Fire Star 02:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Dave the Red (talk) 04:17, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Plenty of valid criticisms of both the motives and the conduct of the war, but those belong on the already-existing pages covering it. -- 8^D ^gab 04:47, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 06:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all is discussed in articles elsewhere. The title is too POV for a redirect. Sjakkalle 07:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is? Where? - ==SV 20:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Try 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Sjakkalle 08:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too early to discuss deletion. It was put up for deletion on the same day it was created. Let's give the article time to be born, so we can see what we're talking about first.

Kevin Baas^talk 19:57, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

• It would also seem that the normal editing of merging articles and moving them to less pov titles is also impaired. Nevertheless I have moved it (having not noticed the notice) and it stands where it does, because I have neither the inclination nor the will to move it back to what it was before, which was a substantially different article. -==SV 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is a comment regarding inappropriate listing: According to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy if an "Article is biased or has lots of POV," it falls under "Problems that dont require deletion" (see the table). The remedy listed is "List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention," and the proper tags to use are {{npov}} or {{POV check}} Since the Deletion listing was misapplied (and since VFD has always been a hangout for delete-freaks anyway) I will take upon myself the laborious effort of removing the inappropriate tag and replacing it with a proper one. It turn out that I was corrent. As I wrote above: "Here, that kind of reflexive reaction is called deletionism, and its treated as a kind of wiki-social disease. 2. The issue of POV merits an {{npov}} sticker, not a {{delete}} sticker." Apologies ladies and gents, for 1. being so late to check the actual policy, (I had made the mistake of assuming that you people actually knew what you were talking about) and 2. for bursting your bubbles -==SV 21:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "VFD has always been a hangout for delete-freaks" is in my view rubbish. Most of the people regularly patrolling the VfD-page make their vote based on the articles merit; also those who label themselves "deletionist". Sjakkalle 08:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that VfD is equally if not more vigilantly patrolled by self-declared inclusionists and "keep-freaks". -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey! Don't call me a freak! :-) Sjakkalle 11:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article's current title, "Criticism of the Iraq War", is not inherently POV as the original title "Iraq occupation mistakes" was. However, whether Stevertigo can see it or not, whether he will admit it or not, it was created as a POV fork. "Article is biased or has lots of POV" may not be a reason to delete but "Article is a POV fork" is. Add to this Stevertigo's idea that he is unilaterally entitled to declare the VfD against his article "misapplied" and revert it, and it adds up to a Strong delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might agree with this if someone (anyone) could qualitatively define (and substantiate) for me any practical differences between POV as no reason for vfd (use npov sticker) and a POV fork as reason for "strong delete" of whole article. The term "fork" implies that this material is treated elsewhere in a similiarly complied way. Where? It cant be that hard to provide a link! Does this mean that Wives of Henry VIII should be deleted because it contains redundant info, that can be found accross the related and attached articles? LOL. -==SV 22:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it your opinion then that "compiling" information from two or more articles together entitles the compiler to create as POV an article as they like, and then that article is actively protected from deletion, because "POV is not a reason to delete" and somehow covering the same ground as more than one article makes it less a duplicate article? "LOL." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No sir: It is my view that using the vfd as a means to express a criticism of an article's premise is the cheapest of cop-outs. In case you hadnt noticed, this is a wiki: If the issue is the title - MOVE IT. POV content? - Edit it, FFS! ==SV 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a complementary page? Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

• keep edit and expand as currently retitled (Criticism of the Iraq War); the war and subsequent peace was one which triggered massive criticism and debate. Some of it valid, some not, definitely much of which could be interestingly analysed beyond the level which the general article can afford to. If there are non NPOV statements, move them to the talk page rewrite them for balance or make the needed additions.. Mozzerati 17:00, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
• Keep but revise. This article seems to be highly biased at this point, and facts are weak. How about adding statistics, initial goals and current results, and possibly comments by people involved? The title does not cover potential information that can be added, including other POV's on the Iraq occupation. --Sango123 19:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or revise This is too biased. --Dr. Ingel 02:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• keep --Yonghokim 06:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep so long as verifiable and revise. For example the criticism of not guarding the main Museum is questionable considering it was used as a base of operations for Saddam loyalists; and most items were safely recovered after an initial lack of cooperation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Critique only does not allow relevant counter-points to be brought up in each section. If 2003 Invasion of Iraq is getting too cluttered then you can split that into smaller sections such as Motivations for 2003 invasion of Iraq and how it was carried out. The answer is not making an inherently one-sided article. gren 05:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a bit of a non-sequitur. Whilst the article currently has pretty much only criticism, you can easily and simply add criticism of criticism, which is the whole point. The level of criticism was strong enough to make it interesting in and of its own. E.g. the article claims that the WMD claim is provenly falsifiable (presumably just because the American weapons inspectors after the war claimed it was false). On the other hand George Bush has recently criticised that by claiming that there were WMD in Iraq and that they had been found, which is a different point of view. Both should be stated along with the case for each. Claiming that an article about criticism is non-NPOV is like claiming that an article about "Motivations for 2003 invasion of Iraq" is non-NPOV. Both can be made NPOV or not. Mozzerati 06:58, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Gren:"Motivations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq" (LOL) might be an "alternate" way of looking at it, but I think that "motiviations" is MUCH more POV than "criticism," which like Mozzerati says, can still be a well-enough written article. But while "motivations" can include criticism, its basic framework is much more limited in scope. Snide comment: Considering also the inconsistenty and shifts in "motivation" (in rhetoric, anyway) from 2002-2005 maybe the title "ever-changing motivations" would be more accurate. ;) -SV|t|add 19:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not non-sequitir I don't think. I prefer motivations because the motivations are US policy and US policy is worth reporting. Criticisms stem from US policy, not the reverse. Yes, I know both can contain POV but I think we must keep in mind what is the news and what is in reaction to that. I think the "criticism of the criticism" argument is taking the whole issue backwards. and Stevertigo, your comment might have been snide but it amused me... I do think there is plenty to question about the Bush administrations actions... I am not a staunch Republican trying to keep Wikipedia free of dissent... in fact I dislike most political parties... I just don't like what I see as the implications of such a title. If you want to change my vote to an Apathetic really not going to argue if it's not deleted delete then you may do so. Just know my argument is with the title not with the content so much. (do balance it though...) gren 19:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. JYolkowski // talk 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into 2003 Invasion of Iraq. - Pioneer-12 00:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable. Not notable. Probable vanity. Delete --BM 23:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable Gazpacho 23:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. SteveW 23:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Chad must be a great guy, but so are we all. Delete unnotable Chad. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 22:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; has to be vanity. Being military does not make you worthy of an article. Do something recongnizably notable, and try again in a few decades, Chad. --Kaelus 23:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable. Not notable. Possible vanity. Delete --BM 23:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Possible vanity? A legend at 23? Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 06:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "local guitar legend in Western Massachusetts" - If he's not ven qualified as a legend in a complete state, and not a very large one at that, then this article points to probable vanity. - Sango123 00:21, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Full House. – ABCD 22:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A fictional show within a show. Sub-stub. Not encyclopedic. Delete --BM 23:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've redirected it to Full House. Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD 22:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An interesting story, but unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not Fark. Alba 23:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Borderline in my opinion. If it does stay, it needs to be cleaned up, but that's listed there already by me. Ravenhull 18:21 (CST), 6 Apr 2005
• Hard to verify. If bogus, then urban legend. Delete anyway. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no google or yahoo search hits, probable hoax --AYArktos 00:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be redone completely but ultimately kept. The grammar and presentation is awful but the person and the story is worth mentioning

• No vote, but it's certainly not urban legend (many Google hits). This article is a copyvio, though, from [13]. Joyous 01:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7 Google hits including forum posts he apparently wrote himself. Non-notable. Not a signed musician/producer. Possible hoax or vanity. --BM 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hopeless vanity. Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The published essays alluded to are on his blog. They're eloquently written, if nothing else. Miles (Talk) 23:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia.org kicks ass. I mean it. I have been using Wikipedia for the last two years now and I have yet to get bored with its' capabilities. ... Wikipedia is the god of all internet encyclopedia's... Cheers to Wikipedia.org!" — Chauncy [14] Miles (Talk) 17:59, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --AYArktos 01:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

note also his changes to Dichotomy where he refers to himself as a foremost thinker, several other changes made from this IP have been reverted

• Delete - vanity--Clngre 01:38, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete In a brainslug voice: "I concur!" Looks like a Discordian prank. 195.148.74.159 06:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dsmdgold 22:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or an advertising space. Mgm|^(talk) 22:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. See also Wikipedian Elitism. RickK 23:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Wgfinley 19:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (although I like the drawing). Rhobite 05:19, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This very long list was dumped here by User:RK. I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of listing every publication by a living scholar, some of which will probably not achieve notability. Delete, or perhaps condense and merge with Jacob Neusner. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• keep, it's too big to merge, no need to condense. Kappa 23:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And is it encyclopedic? JFW | T@lk 21:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, condense it to only major publications to Jacob Neusner. Megan1967 06:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Transwiki, This does feel like something that belongs in wikisource or wikibooks. Radiant_* 08:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge: it is a significant record and research resource.
  • Comment by User:68.196.203.80, who has three edits.
• Keep, significant. --mz 16:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Original research. Possibly speediable as patent nonsense. Delete. --BM 23:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research/deep thoughts. Gazpacho 01:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Article doesn't make much sense, but then does the Orgone theory? Pseudosciences and other quackeries have their own pages, if anything to inform people how silly most of them are. It should be given a chance to be cleaned up, perhaps. --Hooloovoo 02:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Delete as nonsensical, I was too tired at 2am to think of the google test. --Hooloovoo 14:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Transfrequencey miserbly fails the google test [15]. Original resarch/non-notable. Dave the Red (talk) 04:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Radiant_* 08:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD 22:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable author. Self-published on-line. 710 Google hits, mostly a result of his web-publishing his novels. Possible vanity. Delete --BM 23:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio.[16] Likely self-posted here, but without documentation to that effect... Postdlf 00:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Setting aside that issue, delete based on nonnotability. Postdlf 00:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyright vio. Megan1967 06:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[17] 38 google links only

BTW first time nominator, surely the project can produce a better method for deletion? The cost of time from finding and quickly deciding is already quite irksome. Lotsofissues 23:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic, part of a joke on Eric Van Nostrand. del. FreplySpang (talk) 18:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)}} sorry, forgot final step of adding to WP:VfD yesterday, doing so now. FreplySpang (talk) 23:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense Dsmdgold 02:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, absurd. NeevaN 02:34, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation. RickK 23:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Has an IMDB article afterall.
  • Comment by Tomf688 at 00:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. The IMDB page currently lists the status as "Announced." Thus, it is still under speculation. Zzyzx11 01:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Wikipedia is not a crystalball" argument. Anonymous Cow 01:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind: Keep - Google News Anonymous Cow 01:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• May be "announced", but received enough press attention and is by famous director. Keep. Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Zzyzx. Radiant_* 08:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Project by notable director and attracting attention. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, documented speculation. Kappa 11:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speculation is speculation, and rumor is rumor, no matter what adjectives you paste in front of it. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unreleased things can be notable, like this one. Xezbeth 12:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the Hollywood equivalent of vaporware, and until the cameras actually start rolling it's pure speculation and rumor. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The page is informative and doesn't speculate beyond the probable. Matthewcieplak 02:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speculation is speculation, no matter how you slice it. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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